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

143(1) of the Act, altered the manner of set off and adjusted the short-term capital loss against short-term capital gains taxable at normal rates instead of long-term capital gains. As a consequence, the income taxable at normal rates stood reduced, which in turn resulted in restriction of deduction under section

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(1) of the\nAct, altered the manner of set off and adjusted the short-term capital\nloss against short-term capital gains taxable at normal rates instead of\nlong-term capital gains. As a consequence, the income taxable at normal\nrates stood reduced, which in turn resulted in restriction of deduction\nunder 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

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/12/2022. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru. 5. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: - I) With regard to rate per sq. ft towards

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

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/12/2022. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru. 5. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: - I) With regard to rate per sq. ft towards

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

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

143(3) of the Act and the department treated the gain under similar facts as long term capital gain. Therefore, in view of the principle of consistency also the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. So far as the last issue as to the taxation of income from flat instead of plant and machinery

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

143(3) of the Act as the assessee has satisfied the conditions of the proviso of said section as the assessee filed return of income u/s 139(4C) of the Act and he relied on the remand report submitted by the AO, which is placed on record in pages 137 to 140. He also relied on the judgement of jurisdictional

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

capital gains by adopting deemed\nsale consideration at Rs. 26,89,99,677/-. However, the assessee has\nfailed to do so. It has also been seen that the assessee has furnished\nincorrect details regarding sale consideration of one property sold and\ndeclared in the ITR as per the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax\nAct

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

143(1) of the Act, adjusted the business loss against the capital gains. This adjustment reduced the carry-forward business loss to Rs. 28,82,236/- while the tax liability on capital gains remained unchanged at Rs. 3,58,312/-. 3. Against the intimation order, the assessee filed a rectification application under section

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

143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO. The assessee also contended that the addition made under the head “Long Term Capital Gain” on conversion of the partnership firm into a company is also not in accordance with section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

143(3) of the Act originally on\n29.03.2016 accepting the submissions of the assessee and alter on passing of\nOrder by the learned CIT(A) on returned income originally filed by the\nassessee under section 139(1) of the Act of Rs.5,29,40,890/- was accepted and\nthe capital gain

SHANTHA ALIAS SHANTHAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

gains, sale proceeds, and refundable deposits were also found to be unsustainable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "153C", "143(2)", "132", "131", "45(5A)", "139(1)", "143(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were valid in absence of incriminating material, proper satisfaction note, and notice u/s 143(2). Also, whether the additions made on account of capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "139(5)", "143(1)", "147", "148", "144", "50C", "2(47)", "45", "48", "53A", "56(2)(x)" ], "issues": "Whether a sale transaction, subsequently cancelled and where no consideration was passed or possession transferred, can be considered a 'transfer' for capital gains

PIONEER INDEPENDENT TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

143(3) of the Act is right in law and on facts and thus cannot be termed erroneous when the cost of acquisition for computing long term capital gain on transfer of units of equity-oriented funds is as per Section

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

143(2) of the\nAct was not required to be issued since the return of income was on\n26.2.2021 in response to the Notice u/s 153C of the Act dated\n24-03-2020 which was said to be invalid without appreciating the fact\nthat the AO has not issued any Defective Notice u/s 139(9) and\ntherefore the return filed

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

capital gains for one. Information received indicated that the stamp duty value of all properties was significantly higher than the declared sale consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on this discrepancy and also on undeclared interest income from fixed deposits. The AO issued a notice under section 148 and completed the assessment under section 147 read with

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

capital gains in an account which is duly\nnotified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption\nfrom payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount is to be\ninvested in the said account. If the intention is not to retain cash but to invest in\nconstruction or any purchase

SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

143 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Ld AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny and made complete scrutiny ignoring the instructions given. Page 3 of 18 9. The Ld. Assessing officer erred in charging tax on STCG arising on sale of equity oriented mutual funds at regular rates than at concessional specified rates u/s 111A