DR ANJANAIAH ,TUMKUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee’s stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiita No.676(Bang)/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dr. Anjanaiah, Maruti Hospital, Maralur Ring Road Maralur, Tumkur Panno.Acjpa1504A Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2(3)(1), Bangalore Respondent & Ita No.677(Bang)/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dr.M.A.Venkatesh Murthy, Martuti Hospital, Maralur Ring Road, Maralur, Tumkur Pan No.Ablpv0955B Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2(3)(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit

4. Aggrieved by addition made by Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT (A). 5. Ld.CIT(A) is recorded that out of total area of 2543.25 square meter, assessee used only 586.96 square meter for residential purposes and remaining has been used for commercial purposes of running hospital. Ld. CIT (A) was of the opinion that exemption under section

SRI DHEERAJ GOVINDAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2724/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Dheeraj Govindappa, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, 1183, 3Rd Cross, 3Rd Stage, Ward – 4[2][2], Hal Layout, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Bpqpg 3893 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Satya Sai Rath, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019

4 of 9 5.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee denies itself liable to be charged interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

4,795 sq. ft. that was also held to be under the occupation of the assessee. This building with the land has been sold. It was only the first floor that was let out. The Tribunal took into consideration the extent of the building used mainly for the residential purpose of the assessee and found that the major portion

SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal is filed by assessee is before us stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

54F(1 above )(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the provision of section 4F(1)(b) needs to be read together and not in isolation. 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to gross Same as up the consideration at Rs. 1,39,00,000/- by above including TDS

SMT. MUNILAKSHMI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal is filed by assessee is before us stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

54F(1 above )(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the provision of section 4F(1)(b) needs to be read together and not in isolation. 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to gross Same as up the consideration at Rs. 1,39,00,000/- by above including TDS

SRI. G.S. SHIVANNA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-4, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate 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

section 142(1) dated 17.01.2017 was issued calling for the following details: Bank Statement for the period from 01.04.2015 to 1) 31.3.2016 Copy of Return of Income & Computation. 2) Financials for A.Y 2015-16 & Statement of Affairs. 3) Full details of TDS for A.Y 2015-16. 4) Large deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G: 54GA 5) 4. The assessee

MAHESH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18\nbearing no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019-20/1017802947(1) dated 06.09.2019\nRe: Mahesh Reddy\n====\nPAN: AFTPR0449A\n====\nWith reference to the above and in continuation of our submissions dated 11.09.2019, we have hereby submit the following details:\nPoint no. 1 of the notice u/s 142(1):: Note On Professional Activities

SRI. H.R. DIWAKA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

4 is in respect of claim of brokerage being disallowed amounting to Rs.2,37,500/-. ITA No.771(B)/2016 13 8.2 Ld.CIT(A) disallowed the said sum out of total brokerage amounting to Rs.4,27,500/- as assessee could not produce any evidence regarding the parties to whom such payments were made. It has been submitted that total brokerage claimed

MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18\nbearing no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019-20/1017802947(1) dated 06.09.2019\nRe: Mahesh Reddy\n====\nPAN: AFTPR0449A\n==\nWith reference to the above and in continuation of our submissions dated 11.09.2019, we have hereby submit the following details:\nPoint no. 1 of the notice u/s 142(1):: Note On Professional Activities

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

4. Pursuant to Section 3.03 of the Agreement, Spreadtrum is required on a quarterly basis to Sasken with a written report reflecting all shipments of Spreadtrum Products during the quarter (“royalty report”). Spreadtrum has breached the Agreement by failing to provide a royalty report since the first quarter of 2012. Spreadtrum is ordered to provide Sasken with the required royalty

SHRI. M.NANDA KUMAR, L/R SMT. JAYASHREE R,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

section 54F has been denied for the reason that the assessee have not received the site and could not construct the house property thereon. 6.3. We note that assessee had allegedly sold land of 2 Acres 20 Guntas bearing survey no. 54 at Chikkanayakanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk to M/s. Astro Land Developers for a sale consideration

SHRI. M.NARENDRA KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

section 54F has been denied for the reason that the assessee have not received the site and could not construct the house property thereon. 6.3. We note that assessee had allegedly sold land of 2 Acres 20 Guntas bearing survey no. 54 at Chikkanayakanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk to M/s. Astro Land Developers for a sale consideration

KEMPAIAH NAGARAJ,BANGALORE vs. NA, NA

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

4(1)(2). Bangalore, being the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, thereby violating Section 151A and Faceless Reassessment Scheme 6. Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering the detailed responses and evidences filed before the Assessing Officer, justifying the claim of indexed costs of acquisition and improvement and exemption u/s. 54F. And for other reasons and grounds that

ARADHYA STEEL WIRES PVT LTD.,,DAVANGERE vs. DCIT, DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

TDS credit as claimed in the return of income same is to be allowed without any variation. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in not giving the specific finding while granting relief with respect to addition made by the assessing officer on account of Interest accrued on accumulated balance of Provident Fund.” Revenue’s appeal

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. DILIP RANJREKAR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

TDS credit as claimed in the return of income same is to be allowed without any variation. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in not giving the specific finding while granting relief with respect to addition made by the assessing officer on account of Interest accrued on accumulated balance of Provident Fund.” Revenue’s appeal

S. SHANKARANARAYAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri S.Shankaranarayan, No.708, 6Th B Cross, 3Rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034. … Appellant Pan: Aasps7994R Vs Income-Tax Officer (Tds) Ward 16(2), Bangalore. … Respondent

TDS) Ward 16(2), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by: Shri Chavali Narayan. Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 27/08/2015. Date of pronouncement: 23/09/2015. O R D E R Per VIJAY PAL RAO, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28/01/2014 of the CIT(A)-LTU, Bangalore, for the assessment year

SHRI.JAYA PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

54F of the Act, in respect of the Sale Consideration of Rs. 39,86,280/-inclusive of Stamp Duty and Registration Fee in acquiring a New residential flat bearing No. G-2. Creative Environs, 2nd Sector HSR Layout, Bangalore. 5. Without Prejudice to the above grounds the Appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact

T.D.RAJAN vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

TDS Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. PAN:AABHT 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent Assessees by: Shri Rajaram Kote, CA. Revenue by: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, ACIT(DR). Date of hearing : 23/11/2015 Date of pronouncement: 29/12/2015. O R D E R Per VIJAY PAL RAO, JM: These two appeals by the two connected assessees are directed against