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

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of IT Act. In the present case

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

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of IT Act. In the present case

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

144 as reproduced above, it should be the case of the AO that the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 of IT Act or assessee has failed to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of IT Act. In the present case

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU vs. M/S. BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

capital gains tax and the amount to be taxed under section 45(1) is not dependent upon the receipt of the consideration. The Hon’ble High Court held that in the subject assessment year no right to claim any particular amount gets vested in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, entire amount of Rs.20 crores which is sought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

section 153C that the said seized document does not pertain to Trans Global Power Ltd. but to the assessee. The AO of the assessee after examining the JDA and satisfied that the same belongs to the assessee initiated proceedings u/s.153C. The AO on examination of the JDA was of the view capital gains arises at the time of execution

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

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 2 of 16 3. The brief facts are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act after following

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

section 144 of the Act, on the ground that the appellant did not respond to the show-cause notice dated 13/12/2013 proposing to complete the assessment in a particular manner. It may be mentioned here that the appellant has contended that there was no transfer of any capital asset and no capital gains

SHRI. MALLAPPA SHARANAPPA UDNOOR,GULBARGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

capital gain account within the period as prescribed under the section. The assessee sold agriculture land for a consideration of Rs.73,91,250 having 1/3 rd share amounting to Rs.25.53.750. The assessee did not file return of income within the due date as per Section 139. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order under Section 144

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

capital gain. Accordingly AO\nmade addition of Rs.92 lakhs and completed assessment under Section 144 of\nthe Act.\n3. Aggrieved

SRI G MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri G. Muniraju, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S/O. Late Shri Chikkaveeraiah, Ward – 7[2][4], 7Th Floor, Bmtc Building, No.47, Uddanahalli Village, Tavarekere Village, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru South Taluk – 560 082. Bangalore – 560 095. Pan : Akapm 4763 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Lakshmi K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019

144 of the Act vide order dated 26.12.2017 wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.37,50,000/- by taxing the entire consideration the assessee received as his share in the aforesaid sale of property at Taravekere Village, Bangalore South Taluk under the head ‘capital gains’. 2.2 Aggrieved by the ex-parte order of assessment dated 26.12.2017 for Assessment

POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

144 was issued by the assessing officer on 30th May 2023. 4. Case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information that assessee has earned long term capital gain in the sale of shares of sun star Realty Limited as per Report of Investigation wing. 5. Assessee categorically submitted that she has not claimed any benefit from section

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

capital gains arising out of the said transfer is taxable\nin AY 2007-08.\n7.7 The Chennai ITAT in Tamilnadu Brick Industries v. ITO in\nITA No.744/Chny/2017 for the AY 2013-14 dated 11.5.2018 dealt\nwith an issue as to whether a registered GPA along with a JDA\nconferring entitlement to the developer to sell, convey or deal with\nthe

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

144 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The CIT has erred in making an addition of Rs. 82,76,520 out of the advisory fee of Rs 4,00,00,000 paid by the appellant. 6. The CIT has not specified any basis or provided any reason why he choose to disallow Rs 82,76,520 and allow

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

144 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The CIT has erred in making an addition of Rs. 82,76,520 out of the advisory fee of Rs 4,00,00,000 paid by the appellant. 6. The CIT has not specified any basis or provided any reason why he choose to disallow Rs 82,76,520 and allow

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

144 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The CIT has erred in making an addition of Rs. 82,76,520 out of the advisory fee of Rs 4,00,00,000 paid by the appellant. 6. The CIT has not specified any basis or provided any reason why he choose to disallow Rs 82,76,520 and allow

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

144 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The CIT has erred in making an addition of Rs. 82,76,520 out of the advisory fee of Rs 4,00,00,000 paid by the appellant. 6. The CIT has not specified any basis or provided any reason why he choose to disallow Rs 82,76,520 and allow

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS.ANITHA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

capital gains require to be recomputed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act and further the calculation of interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act is not in accordance

ITO, BANGALORE vs. DR. ARVIND GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

capital gains require to be recomputed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act and further the calculation of interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act is not in accordance