107 ITD 327 (Mumbai) and Parswanath Padmarajaiah Jain v. ACIT

102 Taxmann.com 92Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#18683 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Judgments citing 107 ITD 327 (Mumbai) and Parswanath Padmarajaiah Jain v. ACIT

M/S. BOSCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.475/Bang/2020 Assessment year : 2014-15 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Commissioner of Hosur Road, Income Tax, LTU, Adugodi, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560030. PAN: AAACM 9840P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Counsel Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 26.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against the o…

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 164/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayan, JCIT(DR)

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…s not Page 6 of 16 eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F for investing in the villa at APR. The Ld.CIT(A) placed reliance on following to decision: • Decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Parswanath Padmarajaiah Jain reported in 102 Taxmann.com 92; • Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co.& Ors. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1. 2.6 The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that the assessee had incurred expenditure for interior decorator which was for making the house more comfortable. On verification of various invoices filed by…

KRISHNA REDDY PRAVEEN KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2173/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 54Section 54F

…icer – ITA No.2630/Bang/2017 and Mrs.S.Suma v. The Income Tax Officer – ITA No.568/Bang/2018. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on the cases of CIT v. M.J.Siwani, Suseela M.Jhaveri’s case 107 ITD 327 (Mumbai) and Parswanath Padmarajaiah Jain v. ACIT 2019 102 Taxmann.com 92 ITAT Bangalore, since the facts of these cases and issue involved in these cases are distinct from the facts and issues involved in the present case. 4. The learned CIT(A)’s reliance on Supreme Court in the case of CC (Imports) v. Dilip Kumar & Co 2018 95 Taxmann 327 (SC) is misplaced since in none of the above judgment of High Courts or I…

LATE SMT. PREMA KUMARI REPRESENTED BY SON & L/H PRAVEEN KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2172/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 54Section 54F