TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

158 of Paperbook) was not accounted in the books by the firm, nor the same is reflected in the Page 10 of 20 capital accounts of the partners. The computation of the gain is not disputed by the lower authorities, though the assessee has not produced any supporting document to show how the original cost of the land was arrived

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 gains u/s 50C and further;\n(iv) That the neither receipt of consideration NOR handing\nover the possession were relevant for the purpose of Section\n50C of the Income Tax Act 1961.\n3. Present proceedings:\nBeing aggrieved for the above orders of the learned lower\nauthorities, the appellant has filed the subject appeal\nchallenging the above orders, urging

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains & interest income declared by the appellant in the Return & disallowed the general & establishment expenses claimed by the appellant. 2.16 The appellant wish to submit that the present learned Pr.CIT-1 cannot review the same records for A.Y. 2015-16, once already examined by his learned predecessor of same rank on merits while granting approval for converting limited into

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains & interest income declared by the appellant in the Return & disallowed the general & establishment expenses claimed by the appellant. 2.16 The appellant wish to submit that the present learned Pr.CIT-1 cannot review the same records for A.Y. 2015-16, once already examined by his learned predecessor of same rank on merits while granting approval for converting limited into

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

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

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

capital gains from joint development agreements (JDAs),\ntreatment of sale proceeds from flats as business income, and inclusion\nof refundable deposits as income from other sources.\n34.2 At the outset, we find force in the contention of the assessee that\nthe jurisdiction assumed under section 153C of the Act is invalid in the\nabsence of incriminating material pertaining

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

capital creditors. The ld. Commissioner has noted that the exchange gain, which constitutes business income of the assessee, has been reduced while determining the total income in the computation of income. This adjustment, according to the ld. Commissioner, was not examined by the AO during the course of assessment. 8. On the basis of these observations, the Principal Commissioner

SRI. K. RAJANNA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.928/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sri K. Rajanna, Hoovadigara Beedhi, Hosuru Bagilu, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Dist. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.9.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore Dt.24.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 2.4.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.13,43,590 From Business & Long Term Capital Gains (‘Ltcg’). The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act'). The Assessing Officer Observed That On Verification Of The Return Of Income, It Was Seen That The Assessee Was In Receipt Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.3,38,00,000 From Sale Of 12 Flats Received From The Developer Consequent To A Joint Development Agreement (‘Jda’)

capital gains on sale 11 flats by the assessee, the learned CIT (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the cost of construction is allowable only for 14,338 sq. ft. of built up area and thereby reduced the deductible cost of construction from Rs.1,97,32,354 for 18,937 sq. ft. to Rs.1

M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

Capital Gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Considering the facts of the case, the assessee was bound to disclose the transactions of transfer and the profits arising from such transfers in AY 2005-06, as the transfers had taken place in FY 2004-05. But the assessee

PRADIP KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(7), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

section 68/69A amounts to double addition on the same sum. Reliance: ACIT v. Kulwant Singh [85 taxmann.com 112 (ITAT Amritsar)]. 6. The CIT(A) also failed to consider that if the appellant had been permitted to file a return of income, the full sale consideration of ₹61,00,000/- would have been duly disclosed in the ITR, and after claiming

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains". Therefore, the quantum proceeding was concluded against the assessee. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that it was not the case of the department that the assessee withheld any information or furnished any false information. The Page 9 of 13 facts necessary for carrying

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. V. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.694/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. Sri V. Madhusudhan Reddy, 502, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038. ….. Respondent. Pan Abipv 7234L Appellant By : Shri G.R. Reddy, Cit (D.R) Respondent By : Ms. Preethi S. Patel, Advocate. Date Of Hearing : 6.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 9.10.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.4.2.2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, An Individual Deriving Income From Salaries, House Property & Money Lending, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2007-08 On 24.10.2007 Declaring Loss Of Rs.15,32,350. The Return Was Processed & The Case Was Subsequently Taken Up For Scrutiny.

Section 143(3) rws 263 of the Act dt.14.3.2013, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals)-I, Bangalore. The 3 learned CIT (Appeals), following the above decision of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case in ITA No.574/Bang/2012 for Assessment Year 2007-08 allowed the assessee's appeal holding that the amount of Rs.15

SUBBALAKSHMI KURADA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 274 rws 271 of the Act is defective as the same has been issued for both concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and thus, the entire proceedings are bad in law and hence, the order passed deserves to be cancelled. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that

DCIT vs. SRI. P. SUBRAMANI,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

capital gains on sale of lands. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order dt.26.4.2012 levying penalty of Rs.10,24,846 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) – III, Bangalore. The learned CIT (Appeals) disposed off the assessee's appeal by the impugned order dt.23.10.2013 deleting the penalty

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

M/S SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

capital adjustment. 7. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A and 234B 7.1. The Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 17,80,158 under section 234A of the Act, despite the Appellant furnishing return of income within the prescribed due date of November 30, 2014. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground