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

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

3. The Assessing Officer, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 on the ground that he did not become the owner of the property, as the said transaction was not IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 10 of 16 evidenced by registration thereof

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

153 C have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on an invalid assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act is void-ab- into and requires to be cancelled, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax failed to appreciate that the 39. order of assessment passed

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

153 C have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on an invalid assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act is void-ab- into and requires to be cancelled, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax failed to appreciate that the 39. order of assessment passed

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

153 C have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on an invalid assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act is void-ab- into and requires to be cancelled, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax failed to appreciate that the 39. order of assessment passed

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

153 C have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on an invalid assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act is void-ab- into and requires to be cancelled, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax failed to appreciate that the 39. order of assessment passed

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.23,18,153/- made on the scrip sale of Pearl Electric Limited on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below were not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act with respect to the purchase of shares of Mahaveer Advanced Rem for Rs.10,60,000/- on the facts and circumstances

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

capital gain was also earned on\nsale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier\nyear, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than\nthe amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that the\ndisallowance voluntarily made by the assessee would meet the\nrequirements of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

capital gain was also earned on\nsale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier\nyear, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than\nthe amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that the\ndisallowance voluntarily made by the assessee would meet the\nrequirements of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

153(1) of the Act on 27.12.2017. The final assessed income was Rs.28,94,66,747/-, which encompassed an addition of Rs.5,00,40,364/- for AY 2015-16. Income Overview Table: Particulars Original ROI 153A ROI Revised (3011.2015) (12.12.2016) computation (10.11.2017) Business Rs.22,75,16,696/- Rs.23,56,46,839/- Rs.28,87,77,351/- income Income from Rs.37

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered