THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

Price (Rs.)\n0\n(Zero)\nFirst Party\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nSecond Party\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 2 1 BENGALURU\nStamp Duty Paid By\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\n20\n(Twenty only)\nBEFORE THE HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nBANGALORE BENCH\nThe Karnataka State Co-\noperative Agriculture and Rural\nDevelopment

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 117 (SC) distinguished. Surath Venkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 722 (Guj) approved. Decision of the Rajsthan High Court

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 117 (SC) distinguished. Surath Venkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 722 (Guj) approved. Decision of the Rajsthan High Court

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 117 (SC) distinguished. Surath Venkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 722 (Guj) approved. Decision of the Rajsthan High Court

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 117 (SC) distinguished. Surath Venkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 722 (Guj) approved. Decision of the Rajsthan High Court

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 117 (SC) distinguished. Surath Venkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 722 (Guj) approved. Decision of the Rajsthan High Court

BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALLI , HUBBALLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer\" shall have the same meaning as assigned to in the\nExplanation to section 92CA.]\n[(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of\ntwo years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought\nto be revised was passed.]\n(3) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing (“TP) order dated 30.10.2019 under section 92CA of the Act and has made the following adjustments: S Particulars Amount (Rs) No A International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (“AE”) 1. Management Fee 6,00,00,000 2. Payment of Royalty 2,55,70,901 B Specified Domestic Transaction 1. Sales promotion expenses paid to United

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing (“TP) order dated 30.10.2019 under section 92CA of the Act and has made the following adjustments: S Particulars Amount (Rs) No A International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (“AE”) 1. Management Fee 6,00,00,000 2. Payment of Royalty 2,55,70,901 B Specified Domestic Transaction 1. Sales promotion expenses paid to United

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SRI LINGARAJU GOWDARA MALLIKARJUNAPPA, CHITRADURGA

transferred are the land and building and the value of the\nshares are dependent upon the underlying assets. Accordingly, the land\ntransferred is for a value which is less than its guidance value fixed by the\nState Government authorities and the assessee's share is Rs.2,29,09,768/-\nand the same was added under section 56(2

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

56(2)(viib) of the I. T\nAct, 1961 read with Rule IIV and IIVA and the rejection of\nthe same was made by the learned Assessing officer for the\nflimsy, immaterial and irrelevant reasons that the CA's\nreport is qualified and not supported by ant material\nthough the comments in the report are common and general\nin nature