GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Capital Gains. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in holding the appellant is not entitled to exemption u/s. 548 of the Act. 8. The ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition made on account of sale of Agrl. Land, as was shown in the return of income filed u/s. said transaction

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

144B dated 21.03.2022 by making addition of Rs.11,28,000/- to the returned income under the head capital gains on the following grounds: a. That the payment encashed on 04.02.2015 towards sale consideration has been received by the appellant long after the date of agreement to sell i.e., 15.10.2014 and that the second proviso to section

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

capital gain from bonus BEL shares to business income, denying exemption under Section 10(38). Both assessments were allegedly done without following mandatory procedures.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) exceeded jurisdiction by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny without proper approval and by failing to issue a draft assessment order as required by Section 144C

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

capital gains from bonus shares as business income without issuing a draft assessment order.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny for AY 2016-17 by examining issues beyond those identified. For AY 2017-18, the assessment order was void ab initio for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 144C.", "result": "Allowed

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for assessment year 2016-17 in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 29.03.2021. IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 110 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.11.2016 declaring at income

MUSHEER AHAMED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 144B of Page 2 of 8 the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 3 March 2023 passed by the National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (the learned assessing officer) was dismissed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal raising several grounds of appeal however the grievance of the assessee is regarding computation

SRI. SANDEEP NARAYAN GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

144B without allowing the appellant to file the details on 24.3.2022 by disabling or locking the submit response option in the efiling portal. 5. The NFAC erred in not appreciating that the appellant had filed an adjournment request for filing the details on or before 24.3.2022 for medical reasons of the authorised representative. 6. On facts and circumstances

MRS. SUREKHA L/R OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") is bad in law in as much as the same is passed in the name of a dead person and hence is non est and void. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the proceedings under section 147 were initiated against a dead person and hence the entire proceedings

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

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

144B." 5.10 The power of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction. This power is granted to correct an error, which is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the order of the Assessing Officer, even if it is approved by the Joint Commissioner, who is also falling below the rank

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

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

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

ASIAN EARTH MOVERS,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

section 144B of the Act. 5. The Learned AO erred in computing the capital gain as short-term capital gain

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

capital gain wrongly as\ntaxable in the return of income though it was not subjected to tax under intimation\nu/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee cannot be prevented to claim the same as not\ntaxable. This view of ours is fortified by the judgement of Madras High Court in the\ncase of M/s. Areva T & D India

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

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

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

SMT. NILESHWAR JAYANTHI PRABHU L/R OF LATE SRI. NILESHWAR DAMODAR PRABHU,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

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

capital gains. The Ld.CIT(A) thereby confirmed the order of the AO which was made in the name of the deceased assessee. The assessee challenged the said order before this Tribunal and also raised an additional ground which goes into the root of the matter. In the additional ground, the assessee claimed that the assessment order made on the deceased

CRYSTAL ICE AND COLD STOR AGE,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALURU

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Crystal Ice & Cold Storage, Plot No. 395-A1 Industrial Area, The Income Tax Officer, Baikampady New, Mangalore, Ward-1(1), Vs. Mangaluru, Karnataka – 575011. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaefc9692E Appellant Respondent

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.03.2024 by the Assessment Unit was dismissed. The Assessee is in Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case show that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee, as Assessee remained non-complainant on account of 7 notices issued

UPAMA ROY,KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-5(3) (4), KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –

capital gains. 4. Consequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard on 24 March 2022 via the registered email address on record. As the assessee did not furnish the required details, the Assessing Officer deemed it appropriate to proceed with the issuance of the notice under Section