LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd (PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd) of Rs. 20,25,08,735/-. 21. That the authorities below erred in making addition

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd (PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd) of Rs. 20,25,08,735/-. 21. That the authorities below erred in making addition

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd (PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd) of Rs. 20,25,08,735/-. 21. That the authorities below erred in making addition

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd (PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd) of Rs. 20,25,08,735/-. 21. That the authorities below erred in making addition

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

68 of the 1961 Act. The appellant/assessee adopted a three-pronged plea in support of the above contention; First, that assessment order refers to Section 145(2) of the 1961 Act. It should have mentioned Section 145(3) of the 1961 Act. For that, the appellant/assessee relies on the amendment of the 1961 Act which came into effect

MR. SHIVAKUMAR MAHADEVAIAH ,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MYSORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), Mysore. However, the case was dismissed CIT(A), Mysore. However, the case

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,190/- in its return, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, resulting in a disallowance of ₹5,13,01,761/- towards gratuity expenses under section 43B of the Act. This adjustment increased the assessee’s income to ₹ 63,40,69,950/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

section 153A would cover the pending returnITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 22 of 147 filed as well and would not be restricted to incriminating material

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

246 under section Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) read with rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income tax rules, 1962 (“Rules”) and erred in making net addition of Rs. 1,58,09,987. 11. The learned assessing officer has erred in invoking rule 8D(2)(iii) for the purpose

SHRI SHIVASHAKTI SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT,MELLIGERI TOWERS, BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BAGALKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

68 of the Act of Rs.99,20,508/-. 6. Aggrived from the above Order of the CIT(A), both the parties have filed appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.452, 517/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 13 7. During the appellate proceedings, the learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and he has filed written synopsis before us which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. SHRI SHIVASHAKTI SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT, .

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

68 of the Act of Rs.99,20,508/-. 6. Aggrived from the above Order of the CIT(A), both the parties have filed appeal before the Tribunal. ITA Nos.452, 517/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 13 7. During the appellate proceedings, the learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and he has filed written synopsis before us which

MR. M.N. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 153A, learned CIT (A) should have held that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A is bad in law and he should have allowed the appeal of the assessee instead of holding that the appeal is partly allowed. Therefore, we hold that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs. MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 153A, learned CIT (A) should have held that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A is bad in law and he should have allowed the appeal of the assessee instead of holding that the appeal is partly allowed. Therefore, we hold that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A

MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 153A, learned CIT (A) should have held that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A is bad in law and he should have allowed the appeal of the assessee instead of holding that the appeal is partly allowed. Therefore, we hold that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A

MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 153A, learned CIT (A) should have held that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A is bad in law and he should have allowed the appeal of the assessee instead of holding that the appeal is partly allowed. Therefore, we hold that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A

MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 153A, learned CIT (A) should have held that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A is bad in law and he should have allowed the appeal of the assessee instead of holding that the appeal is partly allowed. Therefore, we hold that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs. MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 153A, learned CIT (A) should have held that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A is bad in law and he should have allowed the appeal of the assessee instead of holding that the appeal is partly allowed. Therefore, we hold that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A

MR. M.A. SIDDIQUE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 153A, learned CIT (A) should have held that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A is bad in law and he should have allowed the appeal of the assessee instead of holding that the appeal is partly allowed. Therefore, we hold that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A

MR. MOHAMMED SAFWAN,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in the case of Mr

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 153A, learned CIT (A) should have held that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A is bad in law and he should have allowed the appeal of the assessee instead of holding that the appeal is partly allowed. Therefore, we hold that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A