K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 11 of 33 of Rs.17,96,704/- (Rs.4,92,69,179 – 4,74,72,475) was added back to the income of the assessee and brought to tax. 3.6 With regard to the Notional rent on residential property owned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has come up in appeal before us and raised the following grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

gains, stamp duty value was to be regarded as full value of consideration Finance Act, 2018 / 2020 has inserted a third proviso to section 50C(1) which provides that stamp duty value of the capital asset transferred will be deemed to be full value of consideration only if stamp duty value exceeds 105 / 110 per cent of the consideration received

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

104. PAN: ACWPT0308C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi {in brevity

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain. Which is appealed before\nthe CIT- NFAC, which concluded under in line with that of the ld.\nAO, resulted in appeal before us.\n4. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessee is not having any\nexclusive ownership of more than one house property as on the date\nof investment in the new property and fully eligible to claim

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 271 (l)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, the penalty was to be deleted.” 5.6 This was also supported by the order of the Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Indira Agarwal in ITA No.1444/JP/2018 dated 22.3.2019 wherein held as under: 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The question arises whether

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

104/- respectively. However, the Assessee has not explained how it has been able to earn rental income from the same premise when it was undergoing major construction activity during the relevant FYs. Further in the break-up of expenditure for construction of industrial shed furnished, the Assessee has not reported any labour or sub-contract cost towards the construction

CRYSTAL ICE AND COLD STOR AGE,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALURU

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Crystal Ice & Cold Storage, Plot No. 395-A1 Industrial Area, The Income Tax Officer, Baikampady New, Mangalore, Ward-1(1), Vs. Mangaluru, Karnataka – 575011. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaefc9692E Appellant Respondent

104/- and resultant capital gain was worked Page 3 of 6 out at Rs. 10,43,865/-. The property was sold to Mr. Harry Dsouza and Theresa Dsouza for Rs. 70,00,000/- on which the TDS of Rs. 70,000/- was made. The Assessee submitted the purchase deed of the property also. 5. The Ld. Assessing Officer noted that

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

capital gain income of Rs. 37,28,537/- on sale of sale of equity share / unit of equity oriented Mutual Fund under section 111A. 3.2 Subsequent to a survey conducted under section 133A, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued, requiring the Assessee to file

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

104 to 112 (Kol) of 2017 author of judgment Sri. N.V. Vasudevan 3M & M. g) Indore ITAT in case of Omprakash Gupta Vs ACIT IT(SS)A.No.277 to 2811Ind/2017, 283 to 2871Ind/2017 h) Delhi Bench ITAT in case of ACIT Vs SMC Power Generation Ltd in ITA No.33951Del/2015 CO No.4361DeI/2015 i) Mumbai ITAT 'E' Bench in case of Dy.CIT

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

104 to 112 (Kol) of 2017 author of judgment Sri. N.V. Vasudevan 3M & M. g) Indore ITAT in case of Omprakash Gupta Vs ACIT IT(SS)A.No.277 to 2811Ind/2017, 283 to 2871Ind/2017 h) Delhi Bench ITAT in case of ACIT Vs SMC Power Generation Ltd in ITA No.33951Del/2015 CO No.4361DeI/2015 i) Mumbai ITAT 'E' Bench in case of Dy.CIT

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

104 to 112 (Kol) of 2017 author of judgment Sri. N.V. Vasudevan 3M & M. g) Indore ITAT in case of Omprakash Gupta Vs ACIT IT(SS)A.No.277 to 2811Ind/2017, 283 to 2871Ind/2017 h) Delhi Bench ITAT in case of ACIT Vs SMC Power Generation Ltd in ITA No.33951Del/2015 CO No.4361DeI/2015 i) Mumbai ITAT 'E' Bench in case of Dy.CIT

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

104 to 112 (Kol) of 2017 author of judgment Sri. N.V. Vasudevan 3M & M. g) Indore ITAT in case of Omprakash Gupta Vs ACIT IT(SS)A.No.277 to 2811Ind/2017, 283 to 2871Ind/2017 h) Delhi Bench ITAT in case of ACIT Vs SMC Power Generation Ltd in ITA No.33951Del/2015 CO No.4361DeI/2015 i) Mumbai ITAT 'E' Bench in case of Dy.CIT

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

104 to 112 (Kol) of 2017 author of judgment Sri. N.V. Vasudevan 3M & M. g) Indore ITAT in case of Omprakash Gupta Vs ACIT IT(SS)A.No.277 to 2811Ind/2017, 283 to 2871Ind/2017 h) Delhi Bench ITAT in case of ACIT Vs SMC Power Generation Ltd in ITA No.33951Del/2015 CO No.4361DeI/2015 i) Mumbai ITAT 'E' Bench in case of Dy.CIT

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

104 to 112 (Kol) of 2017 author of judgment Sri. N.V. Vasudevan 3M & M. g) Indore ITAT in case of Omprakash Gupta Vs ACIT IT(SS)A.No.277 to 2811Ind/2017, 283 to 2871Ind/2017 h) Delhi Bench ITAT in case of ACIT Vs SMC Power Generation Ltd in ITA No.33951Del/2015 CO No.4361DeI/2015 i) Mumbai ITAT 'E' Bench in case of Dy.CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

capital gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\nC. The Third issue

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\nC. The Third issue is that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

section 133(6) from the Lokayukta by the AO and he observed that there is difference in the jewellery declared. Therefore, the information received from the Lokayukta is part and parcel of the incriminating documents found during the course of search. The assessee has not explained the apparent discrepancies in his own statements on affidavit before the statutory authorities