MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

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

section 53A of the Transfer of\nProperty Act was not attracted to the case of the appellant\nunder the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's\ncase.\n3. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that there\nwas only an unregistered agreement of sale dated\n29/08/2012 entered into by the appellant with Mr.\nSrinath Hebbar

SHRI. K V SATISH BABU [HUF],MYSURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2[1], MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

section 2[47][v] of the Act were not applicable to the appellant's case for the year under appeal since the appellant had given possession over the agricultural lands to the Developer on 20/12/2012 that too after conversion of the said lands for nonagricultural purposes on 03/12/2012 and accordingly, the appellant had recognized transfer of the capital assets

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

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds

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

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds

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

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds

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

234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

234-D of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the same deserves to be cancelled. 6. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

234/- u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law. The Assessee wants to bring to your kind notice that the bad debt is claimed u/s 36(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Not under the general clause of section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the Assessing Officer’s action of disallowance

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

Gains’. After satisfying himself on the above issue, the assessing officer issued another notice u/s. 142(1) dated 25.11.2016 seeking details of deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act. The assessing officer has requested for approval of the Pr. CIT for converting the case from limited to complete scrutiny. The approval was communicated to assessing officer on 29.11.2016. However

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

capital gain arises when a person purchases a property and without prejudice the numbers adopted by the officer have no basis and consequently the entire addition of Rs. 1,03,36,94,904/- requires to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. d. Without prejudice, the income assessed is highly excessive and without factual foundation

SMT. SULOCHANA RAMESH,BENGALURU vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

capital gains on sale of flats Rs. 1,18,90,000/- [3] Unexplained credit in the bank accounts Rs. 1,16,28,191/- [4] Unconfirmed credits in the bank accounts Rs. 4,37,21,950/- [5] Unexplained cash deposits Rs. 76,000/- 6. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

234-B of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded

EAPEN GEORGE,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Capital Gain as the entire Sale proceeds was considered as income without considering the cost of acquisition under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. 8. The authorities below are not justified in treating 1NR 1,34,69,453/- as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act failing to recognize that the appellant

LATE. SRI. MADAIAH MANJUNATH L/H BY SRI SACHIDANANDA SWAMY & ORS. ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), BENGLAURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2015-16

Gain was assessed at Rs.23,97,234/- which the assessee had invested for renovation of the theatre and therefore the ITO ought not to have added the same to the Capital accretion. 9. The Assessee relies on the following latest decisions rendered by the, Hon'ble Courts : A. the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, while passing

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

234 CTR 1 (Born), High Court of Bombay has held that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. This was by virtue of the provisions of S.14A(1) and the provisions of Rule

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

234 CTR 1 (Born), High Court of Bombay has held that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. This was by virtue of the provisions of S.14A(1) and the provisions of Rule

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

capital, if not immediately required\nto be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they\ndeposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income\nis attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit\nfacilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

capital so as to advance the loan. Borrowed funds of the assessee have been utilised to lend loans to the public and the rate of interest charged is with a view to generate profit. xv. The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned assessing officer has held that the assessee is engaged in business activity and denied the exemption under section

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

capital so as to advance the loan. Borrowed\nfunds of the assessee have been utilised to lend loans to the public and\nthe rate of interest charged is with a view to generate profit.\nXv.\nThe ld. A.R. submitted that the learned assessing officer has\nheld that the assessee is engaged in business activity and denied\nthe exemption under section