M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

253 (Bombay) CIT Vs. B.N.Keshav (ITA No.21/2003 dated: 3rd April, iv) 2008) CIT Vs. Kurban Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR v) 821 (SC) The ld. AR submitted that once the notice is bad in law and d) all the proceedings consequent to the same are also not sustainable in law and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("Act") against the order passed on 28.01 .2016 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Taxpayers Unit, Circle - 1, Bangalore ("AO") (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order) in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

253 ITR 798 held as under (page 799): “In exercising discretion, under section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice

CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

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

3,96,00,000 40,00,000 23,33,334 4,59,33,334 Taal 19,80,00,000 1,60,00,000 70,00,000 22,10,00,000 6.8 Copies of the Financial Statements for the relevant five financial years, 2011-12 to 2015-16 have been submitted by the assessee which has been kept on record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

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

3,96,00,000 40,00,000 23,33,334 4,59,33,334 Taal 19,80,00,000 1,60,00,000 70,00,000 22,10,00,000 6.8 Copies of the Financial Statements for the relevant five financial years, 2011-12 to 2015-16 have been submitted by the assessee which has been kept on record

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(3) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

68,39,060 and u/R 8D(2)(ii) of Rs.46,67,496 resulting in total disallowance of Rs.3,15,06,556 and completed the assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Page 5 of 13 7. The CIT(Appeals) after considering the detailed submissions and relying on certain judgments, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved

SRI. B.T. DAYANANDA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

section 2(14) of the Act. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on certificate dated 28.11.2011from PWD stating that property is situated beyond 12.6 km from BBMP limits, It has been submitted that Ld.AO erred in treating the purchase and sale of said property as business venture, and that, difference in price must be treated

SRI. B.T. DAYANANDA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

section 2(14) of the Act. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on certificate dated 28.11.2011from PWD stating that property is situated beyond 12.6 km from BBMP limits, It has been submitted that Ld.AO erred in treating the purchase and sale of said property as business venture, and that, difference in price must be treated

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

68,805 5 2014-2015 3,39,72,356 6 2015-2016 4,03,73,597 Total 15,10,05,646 14.1 She submitted that the assessee company has offered a sum of Rs.2,23,19,384/- in its return of income as admitted during the search. From above it is clear case of concealment of income by the assessee

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

68,458/- the assessee disallowed on its own Rs. 16.50 lakhs u/s 14A. Despite being asked by the AO to furnish the disallowance under rule 8D, the assessee did not furnish the details. The provisions of rule 8D inserted by the IT (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2008 with effect from 24.3.2008 are applicable for A.Y. 2008-09 and onwards. Therefore

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,458/- the assessee disallowed on its own Rs. 16.50 lakhs u/s 14A. Despite being asked by the AO to furnish the disallowance under rule 8D, the assessee did not furnish the details. The provisions of rule 8D inserted by the IT (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2008 with effect from 24.3.2008 are applicable for A.Y. 2008-09 and onwards. Therefore