THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

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

SRI DINESH DEVRAJ RANKA,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-8,, BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

gains tax. The above facts show that the claim of the assessee is not supported by any befitting document and therefore in the absence of evidence, it cannot be held that this amount have been incurred wholly and exclusively for transfer of the capital asset. Therefore, though Sheetal Ranka has declared this as income in her return filed with DCIT

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

section\n2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS.\n3.20 He also submitted that merely because T Nadakrishna has\nreflected the above transaction in his income-tax return as being\nexempt, does not imply that the UAFS results in income under the\nAct. in this regard, reliance is placed on the well-settled principles\nthat taxation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE vs. NADAKRISHNA THIMMAIAH, BANGALORE

section\n2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS.\n3.20 He also submitted that merely because T Nadakrishna has\nreflected the above transaction in his income-tax return as being\nexempt, does not imply that the UAFS results in income under the\nAct. in this regard, reliance is placed on the well-settled principles\nthat taxation

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gains was not proper.” 3.10 Further she submitted that para 5 of the decision observes that: 5. On the question of law, the Tribunal has gone by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312 in addition to other decisions of Karnataka High Court

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

183\n\n8.\nAggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the\nlearned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee filed detailed\nwritten submissions and relied on various judgments. The learned CIT(A)\nobserved that AO has disallowed depreciation on the goodwill by stating that\ntangible assets of five restaurants as per the valuation is Rs.14

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

183\n\n8.\nAggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the\nlearned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee filed detailed\nwritten submissions and relied on various judgments. The learned CIT(A)\nobserved that AO has disallowed depreciation on the goodwill by stating that\ntangible assets of five restaurants as per the valuation is Rs.14

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

183 8. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee filed detailed written submissions and relied on various judgments. The learned CIT(A) observed that AO has disallowed depreciation on the goodwill by stating that tangible assets of five restaurants as per the valuation is Rs.14,50,00,000/-. However

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

183 8. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee filed detailed written submissions and relied on various judgments. The learned CIT(A) observed that AO has disallowed depreciation on the goodwill by stating that tangible assets of five restaurants as per the valuation is Rs.14,50,00,000/-. However

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

183 8. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee filed detailed written submissions and relied on various judgments. The learned CIT(A) observed that AO has disallowed depreciation on the goodwill by stating that tangible assets of five restaurants as per the valuation is Rs.14,50,00,000/-. However

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

183\n\n8.\nAggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the\nlearned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee filed detailed\nwritten submissions and relied on various judgments. The learned CIT(A)\nobserved that AO has disallowed depreciation on the goodwill by stating that\ntangible assets of five restaurants as per the valuation is Rs.14

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" has to be computed and it lays down that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides that the Central Government may notify

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

Section 69A of the Act.The addition is made out on basis of loose sheets of documents, which does not come under the ambit of ‘books of entry’ or as ‘evidence’ under the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: 57  CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410  Common Cause and others Vs. Union of India

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