SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of 3 different assessees are directed against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-11, Bangalore, dated 25.02.2025 vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1073691632(1) for the AY 2007-08, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073693303(1) for the AY 2021-22, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073691404(1)

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of 3 different assessees are directed against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-11, Bangalore, dated 25.02.2025 vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1073691632(1) for the AY 2007-08, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073693303(1) for the AY 2021-22, vide DIN No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073691404(1)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain. The deeming provision under Section 50\nC (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable\nproperty may have various attributes, charges. encumbrances,\nlimitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not\ntake into consideration the attributes of the property for determining\nthe fair market value in the condition, the property is offered

SHARANABASAVESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKRI NI HALINGALI,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

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

e). In this case, the issue price was set off against the sale price which clearly indicated that the netting/difference between the two prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society

UDAYA SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been instituted by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 14/10/2025 for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however the effective issue raised is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of deduction

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT (A) – 2, Vadodara dated 12/12/2023 in ITA No. ITBA/APL/F/APL_4/2023-24/1058663510(1) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The facts are briefly that the assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income declaring a business loss

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

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

e). In this case, the issue price was set off against the sale price which clearly indicated that the netting/difference between the two prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

e). In this case, the issue price was set off against the sale price which clearly indicated that the netting/difference between the two prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

e). In this case, the issue price was set off against the sale price which clearly indicated that the netting/difference between the two prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

e). In this case, the issue price was set off against the sale price which clearly indicated that the netting/difference between the two prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

e). In this case, the issue price was set off against the sale price which clearly indicated that the netting/difference between the two prices constituted receipt on a commercial basis or net profit. A. Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773 applied. CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society

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

22-04-2021, determining the\ntotal income at Rs 8,45,68,068/- after disallowing Rs.4,25,00,000/-\nclaimed u/s 54 of the IT Act and Rs.14,30,000/- as cost of\nimprovement.\n2.1 On verification and examination of the assessment record, the\nfollowing were noticed:\n• That the assessee has claimed exemption of Rs. under\ncapital gain

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

e-mail account regularly as most of the assessees are not\ntechnical persons or well versed in electronic media or social media. Being\nso, the assessee has failed to take correct steps in the course of faceless\nassessment/appeal proceedings.\n4.2 Thus, the delay of 561 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is\nto be condoned in view

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

e) Besides this, the assessee has other investments with co-\noperative banks and co-operative societies.\nThe authorities below did not consider the interest earned by\nthe assessee under section 80P(2) (d) of the Act. Rather\ndisallowed the entire claim under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.\nThe Ld.AR placed reliance on following decisions in support

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

e-auction conducted by the BDA and purchased the property through auction on 9.6.2016 for a consideration of Rs.1,59,62,400 and after adding up the cost of registration, it worked out at Rs.1,70,16,279. Later, the assessee was held up with the litigation of this property and there was delay in construction of new residential house

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

e) Besides this, the assessee has other investments with co-\noperative banks and co-operative societies.\nThe authorities below did not consider the interest earned by\nthe assessee under section 80P(2) (d) of the Act. Rather\ndisallowed the entire claim under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.\nThe Ld.AR placed reliance on following decisions in support