ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

section 68 of the Act by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 68

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

68 of the Act. 2.10 The assessee thereafter, made application under section 154 of the Act vide application dated

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income of\nRs. 36,78,25,370/- being taxable at special rate only.\n4.3 The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and\nintimation order was generated as on 28th February 2020 wherein the\nCPC, sett of the short-term capital loss

NARAYANA RAO HEBRI,SAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

68 would apply and section 115BBE will automatically get invoked. Hence the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 12. The assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. 13. The ld. AR submitted that ground No.1 raised is general in nature and therefore no arguments were advances. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 14. According to ground No.2

B. RAVIKUAMR REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

154 is the one which is having jurisdiction over the assessee in whose case Page 6 of 7 the order is sought to be rectified. So on change in jurisdiction, the new jurisdictional AO can do this and in case of transfer the successor AO can do so. 7. As regards merit of the rectification, the CIT(A) noted that

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income of Rs. 36,78,25,370/- being taxable at special rate only. 4.3 The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and intimation order was generated as on 28th February 2020 wherein the CPC, sett of the short-term capital loss

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

68 in the hands of the\nassessee firm by merely relying on the sworn statements of the\npartner Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim which are not binding on the\nassessee. The learned AO ought to corroborate the admission\ncontained in the statement, if any, with independent evidence. If\nAO was not satisfied with the particulars, it would have issued\nsummons

M/S AKME HARMONY APARTMENTS OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

154 cannot prima-facie be held to be invalid. The assessee’s grounds of appeal are therefore disallowed, subject to above remarks.” 3.1 Against this assessee is in appeal before us by way of above grounds of appeal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case assessee made contention before

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

68 in the hands of the\nassessee firm by merely relying on the sworn statements of the\npartner Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim which are not binding on the\nassessee. The learned AO ought to corroborate the admission\ncontained in the statement, if any, with independent evidence. If\nAO was not satisfied with the particulars, it would have issued\nsummons

SMT KUSHALAPPA SAVITRI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

154 of the Act before the CIT(Appeals). The reasons put forth by the assessee are considered. We are of the view that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 88 days in filing the appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

M/S. BELLARY EDUCATIONAL SERVICES TRUST,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCEL-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S.Bellary Educational Services Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax T S Nos-823/B/2/23/C, Allipur Road, (Exemptions), Opp. Maruthi Showroom, Circle – 1, Mangalore. Bellary – 583 104. Pan : Aaatb 4649 N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Shiva Prasad Reddy, Itp Respondent By : Shri. Elamurugu G, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.01.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Panaji, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Trust Engaged In Providing Education In The District Of Bellary, State Of Karnataka. The Assessee Has Been Granted Registration U/S.12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) By The Cit(E), Bengaluru, W.E.F. 01.03.2002. For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 10.11.2015 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.29,68,920/-. The Income Of The Assessee Before Application Of Income For Charitable Purpose As Per The Audited Books Of Account Was A Sum Of Rs.15,94,43,856/-. The Assessee Claimed A Sum Of Rs.2,39,16,578/- As Accumulation Of Income For Charitable Purpose In Future As Permitted Under Section 11(1)(A) Of The Page 2 Of 7 Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Said Provisions Permits Accumulation Of Income To The Extent Of 15% For Application For Charitable Purpose In Future. The Audit Report In Form 10B Was Also Filed Along With The Return Of Income.

68,920/-. The income of the assessee before application of income for charitable purpose as per the audited books of account was a sum of Rs.15,94,43,856/-. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs.2,39,16,578/- as accumulation of income for charitable purpose in future as permitted under section 11(1)(a) of the Page

K R PRADEEP,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

section 68 rws 115BBE(2) of the Act. 7. Without prejudice the authorities below erred in making the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- for the AY 2018-19. 8. Without prejudice the authorities below erred in adopting value of Rs.50,00,000/overlooking Rule 115 rwr 26 of the IT Rules. 9. Without prejudice the authorities below ought to have

INGERSOLL - RAND (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1529/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S. Ingersoll-Rand (India) Limited, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No.35, Kiadb Indl. Area, Circle 11(4), Banglaore. Bidadi, Bangalore-562 109 Appellant Respondent.

68,88,845 in the original return, to Rs.2,48,77,109 in the revised return. In the assessment year under consideration, the assessee primarily operated its business in two segments; (i) Air Solution Segment manufacturing air compressors and (ii) Infrastructure segment manufacturing mining and compaction equipments. The Assessing Officer made a reference under Section 92CA

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,394 2009-10 94,88,913 2010-11 3,19,95,710 2011-12 2,44,56,548 2012-13 54,55,010 2. The proceedings u/s. 201(1) of the Act was initiated by the Officer after issuing a notice on 09.12.2012, 26.2.2013, 23.5.2013 & 20.8.2013. In reply of various notices, the DDIT (Intl. Taxn.) in para 6 mentioned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,394 2009-10 94,88,913 2010-11 3,19,95,710 2011-12 2,44,56,548 2012-13 54,55,010 2. The proceedings u/s. 201(1) of the Act was initiated by the Officer after issuing a notice on 09.12.2012, 26.2.2013, 23.5.2013 & 20.8.2013. In reply of various notices, the DDIT (Intl. Taxn.) in para 6 mentioned

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,394 2009-10 94,88,913 2010-11 3,19,95,710 2011-12 2,44,56,548 2012-13 54,55,010 2. The proceedings u/s. 201(1) of the Act was initiated by the Officer after issuing a notice on 09.12.2012, 26.2.2013, 23.5.2013 & 20.8.2013. In reply of various notices, the DDIT (Intl. Taxn.) in para 6 mentioned

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,394 2009-10 94,88,913 2010-11 3,19,95,710 2011-12 2,44,56,548 2012-13 54,55,010 2. The proceedings u/s. 201(1) of the Act was initiated by the Officer after issuing a notice on 09.12.2012, 26.2.2013, 23.5.2013 & 20.8.2013. In reply of various notices, the DDIT (Intl. Taxn.) in para 6 mentioned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

68,394 2009-10 94,88,913 2010-11 3,19,95,710 2011-12 2,44,56,548 2012-13 54,55,010 2. The proceedings u/s. 201(1) of the Act was initiated by the Officer after issuing a notice on 09.12.2012, 26.2.2013, 23.5.2013 & 20.8.2013. In reply of various notices, the DDIT (Intl. Taxn.) in para 6 mentioned