GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

addition to cost of acquisition of capital asset u/s 48 for computing capital gains chargeable to income-tax. So much

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

additions were made to the returned income: Returned Income 2,09,08,576 Add : Disallowance of Deduction U/s. 54F 49,27,996 Disallowance of Interest Paid in Computing Long Term Capital Gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SRI M J MOHAN , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

Additional income of Rs.25 crores – offered in terms of sec. 132(4) statement is deemed as separate and distinguishable from the Income from Capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SRI M J MOHAN , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

Additional income of Rs.25 crores – offered in terms of sec. 132(4) statement is deemed as separate and distinguishable from the Income from Capital gains

MR. MANIKKUDI JAYARAMAN MOHAN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

Additional income of Rs.25 crores – offered in terms of sec. 132(4) statement is deemed as separate and distinguishable from the Income from Capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. SRI M J MOHAN , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

Additional income of Rs.25 crores – offered in terms of sec. 132(4) statement is deemed as separate and distinguishable from the Income from Capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SRI M J MOHAN , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

Additional income of Rs.25 crores – offered in terms of sec. 132(4) statement is deemed as separate and distinguishable from the Income from Capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SRI M J MOHAN , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

Additional income of Rs.25 crores – offered in terms of sec. 132(4) statement is deemed as separate and distinguishable from the Income from Capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SRI M J MOHAN , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

Additional income of Rs.25 crores – offered in terms of sec. 132(4) statement is deemed as separate and distinguishable from the Income from Capital gains

SHRI. K.T. SANATH,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

Additional Commissioner of No.26, S-5, 2nd Floor, Income Tax, Esteem Plaza, Range 6, Race Course Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. PAN: ALXPS 3665H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V.S. Yogesh Kumar, CA Respondent by : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 15.02.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2016 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain at Rs. 83,37,613 which caused an addition of Rs. 42,28,768 to the returned income

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

Income from other sources" and the same was not liable to be added while computing the capital gains. 9. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have refrained from upholding the computation of capital gains in respect of alleged transfer of property to IDEB- Rs.43,61,72,341/-. 10. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

income for the Assessment Year under consideration clearly indicating no Act / intend to purchase or construct of new asset is evident in the assessee’s case. It was also observed from the submission of the assessee that delay for construction were beyond the control of the assessee because he had to fulfil certain obligations from municipal counsel, and dismissed

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gain ii) Mismatch in income/capital gain on sale of land or building 2.4 In response to said notice, the appellant vide its letter dated 27-9-2016 submitted copies of ITR, Statement of Total Income, audited Financial Statements, etc. to the learned Assessing Officer. 2.5 During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned AO had called for additional

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gain ii) Mismatch in income/capital gain on sale of land or building 2.4 In response to said notice, the appellant vide its letter dated 27-9-2016 submitted copies of ITR, Statement of Total Income, audited Financial Statements, etc. to the learned Assessing Officer. 2.5 During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned AO had called for additional

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify