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

142(1) were issued by the AO, during the course of assessment proceedings. 3.2 There are three issues arising in this appeal , raised by the assessee vide grounds of appeals filed with ITAT. The first issue concerns with disallowance of deduction A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek u/s 54 and 54F of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

142 or under section 148 for the Making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier. (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

142 or under section 148 for the Making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier. (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

142(1) were also issued on various dates along with questionnaires calling for various details to verify the claims made by the assessee in the return of income. After hearing the assessee, assessment was completed by determining total income at Rs.1750,77,68,383/-. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed appeal before

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

142(1) were also issued on various dates along with questionnaires calling for various details to verify the claims made by the assessee in the return of income. After hearing the assessee, assessment was completed by determining total income at Rs.1750,77,68,383/-. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed appeal before

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

142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates calling for the details as per the said notices. The assessee submitted the details as called for. 3.1 During the course of search operations u/s.132 of the Act at the residence of the assessee, several documents among which the material related to a joint development agreement with the developer, namely

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

142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates calling for the details as per the said notices. The assessee submitted the details as called for. 3.1 During the course of search operations u/s.132 of the Act at the residence of the assessee, several documents among which the material related to a joint development agreement with the developer, namely

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

142(1) on various dates were issued and served electronically on the appellant. In compliance to the notices, appellant e-filed detailed replies on 30.11.2021, 22.01.2022 and 09.03.2022. The appellant in response to these notices, stated that the provisions of section 50C are not applicable in case of the appellant as the case of the appellant is covered

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

142 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub- section (2A) of that section, or iii) having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143, ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 50 8. He submitted that paras 9 and 10 of the assessment

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

142 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub- section (2A) of that section, or iii) having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143, ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 50 8. He submitted that paras 9 and 10 of the assessment

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

142 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub- section (2A) of that section, or iii) having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143, ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 50 8. He submitted that paras 9 and 10 of the assessment

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

142 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub- section (2A) of that section, or iii) having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143, ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 50 8. He submitted that paras 9 and 10 of the assessment

SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or (iv) in a case where the asset is converted by the owner thereof into, or is treated by him as, stock-in-trade of a business carried on by him, such conversion or treatment; (v) any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

1,08,31,000 Furniture and Fixtures Rs. 30,34,000 Tools & Moulds Rs. 17,95,000 Vehicles Rs. 3,58,000 Technical Know-how Rs.43,17,62,000 Building nil Inventories Rs. 3,09,000 10. The AO computed long term capital gain of Rs.46,30,45,000 by reducing from the full value of consideration received on transfer

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

iii) In respect of the Levy of Capital gains on the joint development of the property by invoking the provisions of section 2[47] r.w.s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the learned CIT[A] held that the appellant had handed over the control of the property in part-performance of the contract vide their Joint Development Agreement dated

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

142(1) of the Act, was issued Page 4 of 17 to assessee, in response to which, representatives of assessee appeared before Ld.AO and filed various details as called for. 3. On perusal of details, Ld.AO noted that, assessee had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19/09/2013 with Nilachala Ventures Pvt.Ltd. for purchase of residential house for total consideration

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iii) of the proviso to section 34(1), as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1956, a notice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person deemed to be an agent of a non-resident after the expiry of one year from the end of the year of assessment. The right to commence

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iii) of the proviso to section 34(1), as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1956, a notice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person deemed to be an agent of a non-resident after the expiry of one year from the end of the year of assessment. The right to commence

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

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

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. (4) This section applies to - any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium