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

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

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

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

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

capital gains.\n23. The DR submitted that the seized documents had a direct nexus\nwith the total income of the assessee and therefore qualify as\nincriminating material. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High\nCourt in CIT v. SSP Aviation Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 177, it was argued that\nthere is no requirement for the documents

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU vs. ALAKANANDA PRINTERS (P) LTD, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and CO filed by the assessee in support of the Order of the CIT(A)

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

144 of the Act after issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The notice under section 129 of the Act was also issued. The AO noted that the year of incidents of capital gains

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to further add, alter or amend each one of the above grounds of appeal” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

capital gain in the assessment year 2012-13. 5. The Ld. AO rejected the contentions and made addition of Rs.1,45,17,581/- by assessment order dated 24.12.2021 passed under section 153C r.w.s. 144

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

capital gain in the assessment year 2012-13. 5. The Ld. AO rejected the contentions and made addition of Rs.1,45,17,581/- by assessment order dated 24.12.2021 passed under section 153C r.w.s. 144

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

capital gain in the assessment year 2012-13. 5. The Ld. AO rejected the contentions and made addition of Rs.1,45,17,581/- by assessment order dated 24.12.2021 passed under section 153C r.w.s. 144

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

capital gain in the assessment year 2012-13. 5. The Ld. AO rejected the contentions and made addition of Rs.1,45,17,581/- by assessment order dated 24.12.2021 passed under section 153C r.w.s. 144

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

144 of the Act\nas contended by learned DR.\n16. We also wish to quote expression used in provisions of section 148 of the\nAct, “provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if\nsuch return were a return required to be furnished under section 139\"\nwhich means provisions of section

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

capital gain of Rs.28,65,882/-in the financial year 2014-15 in the scrip of M/s GCM Securities Limited, M/s Unno Industries, M/s Pearl Electric Limited, M/s Mahaveer Advanced Rem and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the act. During the course of search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Act, it was found that

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

capital gain. (c) During the year, the assessee transferred shares for a consideration of Rs.2,10,91,591/- and on which, LTCG was computed at Rs.1,82,93,301/- and claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act. As per the computation of income statement, 5,000 shares were purchased on 28.03.2012 for Rs.198.36 per share

SHAMANNA REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Shamanna Reddy, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chowdeshwari Rice Building, Ward – 4(1)(3), Opp. Hi Look Bakery, Bengaluru. Kasavanahalli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru – 560 035. Pan : Ccwpr 8342 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Nischal, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024

section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 21.03.2023. In the said Assessment Order, long-term capital gain

MUNIRAJU VIJAYALAKSHMI ,CHIKKABALLAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPURA

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

Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee and the assessment was\ncompleted under Section 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act.\n3. Aggrieved

MR. JAGANATH RAMACHANDRA JAMADAR ,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BIDAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

144 of the Income tax Act 1961 (`the Act') without taking into consideration the Return of Income filed by the me against notice issued under Section 142(1) of the notice are invalid. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO had grossly erred in not issuing a statutorily mandated notice under

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

144) by the assessee firm. The Assessing Officer denied the index cost of improvement amounting to Rs.7,37,19,400/- which is against the fact of the case and statement recorded during the course of the survey with the concurrence of the survey authorities. The Assessee firm is having the following evidences towards the cost of improvement was produced before

MRS. JEANETTE DSOUZA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. VINOD DSOUZA),MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, with above direction to the learned assessing officer, the ground No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Mrs. Jeanette Dsouza, Lr Of Late Shri Vinod Dsouza, Flat No. San F 10, The Income Tax Officer, Holy Family Apartments, Ward – 1(1), Vs. Lalbagh, Mangalore, Mangalore. Karnataka – 575 003. Pan: Adhpd4076H Appellant Respondent

144 read with section 144B of the income tax act, 1961 (the act) by the National faceless assessment Centre (the learned AO) was dismissed. Page 2 of 5 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the fact that the learned CIT is confirmed the order of the learned assessing officer where the assessee earned a Long term capital gain