DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4) of the Act, the donation in excess of 10% of the gross total income has to be ignored while computing the deduction. Since the gross total income was recomputed, the allowable deduction under section 80G was correctly restricted by CPC. The ld. CIT(A) therefore found no error in the rectification order passed under section

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

11. Now, we take up the three appeals related to the Asst. year 2007-08 in which all three assessee being the partners of the erstwhile firm raised the sole issue that whether the capital gain accruing to the assessee on transfer of land under the joint development agreement is a long-term capital gain or a short-term capital

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

11. Now, we take up the three appeals related to the Asst. year 2007-08 in which all three assessee being the partners of the erstwhile firm raised the sole issue that whether the capital gain accruing to the assessee on transfer of land under the joint development agreement is a long-term capital gain or a short-term capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

4) of section 45, the amount\nchargeable to income-tax as income of such\nspecified entity under that sub-section which\nis attributable to the capital asset being\ntransferred by the specified entity, calculated\nin the prescribed manner:\nProvided............”\n12. On combined reading of these provisions,\nany profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital\nasset with

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

4) of section 45, the amount\nchargeable to income-tax as income of such\nspecified entity under that sub-section which\nis attributable to the capital asset being\ntransferred by the specified entity, calculated\nin the prescribed manner:\nProvided.................................\"\n12. On combined reading of these provisions,\nany profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital\nasset with

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

4) of section 45, the amount\nchargeable to income-tax as income of such\nspecified entity under that sub-section which\nis attributable to the capital asset being\ntransferred by the specified entity, calculated\nin the prescribed manner:\nProvided.. \"\n12. On combined reading of these provisions,\nany profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital\nasset with

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,00,12,501/- under the provisions of section 45(4) of the act ignoring the factual position that there were no transfer of assets consequent to alleged distribution and in the absence of any such distribution there was capital gains

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,00,12,501/- under the provisions of section 45(4) of the act ignoring the factual position that there were no transfer of assets consequent to alleged distribution and in the absence of any such distribution there was capital gains

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

11 is made, then such proceedings shall continue under\nthe provisions of the Act of 1894. It contemplates that such pending\nproceedings, as on the date on which the Act of 2013 came into force shall\ncontinue, and taken to their logical end. However, the exception to Section\n24(1)(b) is provided in Section 24(2) in case

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

11,81,757/- as determined in the impugned order passed as against the returned loss of Rs. 2,83,86,495/- by making an addition of Rs.191 ,95,68,251/- as long term capital gains under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. M/s. Atria Wind (Kadambur) Private Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 19 4

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

11. In respect of the second issue whether the gain arose to the assessee on sale of flats would be long term capital gain or short term capital gain, we observe that the assessee has sold flats, in which land component is also embodied. Undisputed facts are that assessee has acquired the land somewhere 8 Ramesh Narayana Reddy

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

capital gains remained unchanged at Rs. 3,58,312/-. 3. Against the intimation order, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act which was dismissed vide order dated 03rd December 2021. The assessee filed the second rectification application under section 154 of the Act dated 22nd December 2021. 4. During the pendency of the second rectification

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

11 of 53\nparticularly Excel sheets, loose sheets, handwritten notepads, and digital\ndata retrieved from computers, found from cashier or third party namely\nShri T Babu which are nothing but “dumb documents" having no\nevidentiary value in the absence of corroboration, authentication, or link\nto the assessee. It was submitted that these documents did not carry\nthe name or seal

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

11 of 53\nparticularly Excel sheets, loose sheets, handwritten notepads, and digital\ndata retrieved from computers, found from cashier or third party namely\nShri T Babu which are nothing but “dumb documents" having no\nevidentiary value in the absence of corroboration, authentication, or link\nto the assessee. It was submitted that these documents did not carry\nthe name or seal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

11 of 53\nparticularly Excel sheets, loose sheets, handwritten notepads, and digital\ndata retrieved from computers, found from cashier or third party namely\nShri T Babu which are nothing but “dumb documents" having no\nevidentiary value in the absence of corroboration, authentication, or link\nto the assessee. It was submitted that these documents did not carry\nthe name or seal

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 15.01.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book as well as case law compilation in support of his case. 5. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee CA Siddesh N Gaddi vehemently submitted

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

capital gain the assessee decided to buy a site and construct a house under the provisions of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee purchased a site developed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) from the site allotee Shri. Ravikumar N and others at Arkavathi Layout, SiteNo. 196 and 197 formed by the Bangalore Development Authority

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

11 of 53\nparticularly Excel sheets, loose sheets, handwritten notepads, and digital\ndata retrieved from computers, found from cashier or third party namely\nShri T Babu which are nothing but “dumb documents" having no\nevidentiary value in the absence of corroboration, authentication, or link\nto the assessee. It was submitted that these documents did not carry\nthe name or seal