HARIS KALANDAN MOHAMMED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

263 of the Act. Further to attract the provisions of section 68 as alleged in the notice U/ s. 263

HARIYAPPA KOTIAN,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 263 of the Act as the actions of the Assessing Officer is pursuant to applying his mind to the matter and in accordance with law. 8. The Appellant craves Leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all the grounds of appeal urged above.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is originally

M/S. KARTHIK ESTATE,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

Section 263 of the Act as the actions of the Assessing Officer is pursuant to applying his mind to the matter and in accordance with law. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all the grounds of appeal urged above.” 2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

263 ITR 289, 293 (Cal)]. While assessing a partnership firm, the AO can go behind the source of income, but he cannot go to the source of source as per section 68

M/S. EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

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

263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry", that such a course of action would be open. In Gabriel India Ltd.'s case (supra), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner : ". . . From a reading of sub-section (1) of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS 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

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

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

BASHIR AHMED ABDURRAHMAN MATTE,BELAGAVI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,608. Subsequently, the revision proceedings were initiated under section 263 by the Pr.CIT, Belagavi in regard to cost

INGERSOLL RAND (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

263 in para 2 as under : “2. As the Assessing Officer while working out the qualifying business profits for arriving at the deduction u/s 80HHC had wrongly deducted Rs. 11,49,213/- being the deduction allowed u/s. 80HHE instead of the profits of Rs.38,30,713/- in respect of which deduction u/s 8OHHE is allowable, as required under sub-section

VIMALA DEVI A. KANUNGA,HUBLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Vimala Devi A. Kanunga, Pcit, Vs. M/S. Jainam Syndicate, Hubli. Near Shankar Math, Kanchagargalli, Hubli – 580 028. Pan : Amupk 3079 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

68 and taxed u/s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 at the rate of 60%. Further, penalty u/s. 271AAC is Initiated in respect of the unexplained cash credits.” 3. The PCIT in exercise of powers under section 263

OM SAI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,GADAG vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

68.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the order passed must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The learned PCIT in the order passed under section 263

RAMANAMURTHY MATHOD SRINIVASMURTHY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

section 263 be quashed or in alternative the above grounds and relief prayed thereof be allowed. Ramanamurthy Mathod Srinivasmurthy, Bangalore Page 3 of 26 2. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are with regard to assumption of jurisdiction by CIT u/s 263 of the Act. Facts of the issue are that the assessee, a non-resident individual filed his return of income

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

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

263 (1) of the Act to present case by Ld.Pr.CIT. He submitted that the said Explanation 2 was inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, and therefore, not applicable to the years under consideration, being prior to insertion. He placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NTPC Ltd. vs.CIT, reported in 229 ITR 383. 7. We are convinced that

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 The ld. Pr.CIT passed the impugned order u/s 263 was passed on 29.03.2022 setting aside the order

M/S.CORNERSSTONE PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

68 of the Act can be invoked to conduct enquiry on the genuineness of share premium transactions. At paras 5 to 15 thereof, the Hon'ble High Court held as under : 13 “ 5. The direction for inquiry, as contained in the order of the C.I.T., is essentially a step towards charging the receipts reflected as share capital issued at premium

M/S DAVALAGIRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarificatory and hence retrospective. He supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the assessee received alleged money from M/s. Sree Balaji Krupa Enterprises No. 25 & 26, 2nd BMT Complex, Margosa Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore- 560003. The details

SHREE HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,CHIKODI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68. This view of the ld. PCIT, in our opinion, is not the right reason for exercising revisionary powers u/s. 263