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

capital gains tax under Section 45 of the Act could not be levied for this Assessment Year.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "2(47)(v)", "53A", "45", "234A", "234B", "234C

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

capital gains, not business income, and allowed the deduction of costs of improvement and selling expenses.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "2(47)(v)", "53A", "234A", "234B", "234C

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

234C amounting to Rs. 812/-. 4. For the year, the appellant had filed a return of Income on 28.07.2016 vide acknowledgement no. 329224870280716 declaring a total income of Rs.1,76,21,640/-. The return of income filed was processed accordingly. The returned income inter alia included income from Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,65,93,642/- (1/5th Share

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

capital gain from bonus BEL shares to business income, denying exemption under Section 10(38). Both assessments were allegedly done without following mandatory procedures.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) exceeded jurisdiction by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny without proper approval and by failing to issue a draft assessment order as required by Section 144C

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

capital gains from bonus shares as business income without issuing a draft assessment order.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny for AY 2016-17 by examining issues beyond those identified. For AY 2017-18, the assessment order was void ab initio for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 144C.", "result": "Allowed

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

capital gains, and the disallowance of expenses was unjustified.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "2(47)(v)", "53A", "234A", "234B", "234C

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gains for AY 2008-09 should be applied for AY 2012-13, erred in adopting the cost of construction at Rs.951/- instead of Rs.1,620/-. 8. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in rejecting the valuation report submitted by the Appellant to substantiate the cost of construction. 9. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in not making

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

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

capital gain to the total income is unjust in the eye of law. 6. The learned CIT (A) wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.4,85,831/- by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. 7. The learned CIT (A) erred in relying on the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of M/s.John Distilleries

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

capital gain on the sale of same asset cannot be considered in the hands of the assessee. (iii) That the officers of the Department are duty bound to be realistic 86 correct in their approach and should not take advantage of mistakes, if any, on the part of the assessee. Cash Deposits. 4. The learned AO as well

VINOD PRASAD INJETI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, we reverse the orders of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which are consequential to the above impugned additions. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, rescind, modify the grounds hereinabove and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. The only dispute involved in this appeal is non-granting of cost of construction to the assessee of a property

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

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

capital gain. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, AO found from the books of accounts and materials available\nbefore him that assessee has claimed depreciation on goodwill and this issue\nwas not raised at the time of 143(3) of the Act assessment but while\ndisallowing the depreciation on goodwill are not borne out from seized\nmaterial found during

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

capital gain. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, AO found from the books of accounts and materials available\nbefore him that assessee has claimed depreciation on goodwill and this issue\nwas not raised at the time of 143(3) of the Act assessment but while\ndisallowing the depreciation on goodwill are not borne out from seized\nmaterial found during

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

234C of the Act of the Act, in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the assessing officer. Without prejudice, the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and are not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled

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

234C of the Act of the Act, in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the assessing officer. Without prejudice, the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and are not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled

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

234C of the Act of the Act, in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the assessing officer. Without prejudice, the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and are not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled

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

capital gain. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, AO found from the books of accounts and materials available\nbefore him that assessee has claimed depreciation on goodwill and this issue\nwas not raised at the time of 143(3) of the Act assessment but while\ndisallowing the depreciation on goodwill are not borne out from seized\nmaterial found during

MR. JAGANATH RAMACHANDRA JAMADAR ,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BIDAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

capital gains for the AY 2017-18 which is not in terms of section 45(2) of the Act. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO had grossly erred in considering the cost of acquisition at Rs 3,00,000 and not Rs 3,35,000 as incurred by me towards

SHRI. PANKAJ KAPUR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

capital gains. 4.The learned Commissioner (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of exemption claimed under sec 54F of the Act by the appellant. 5.The learned Commissioner (A) erred in not considering the proof of investment made by the appellant for considering the deduction under sc 54F of the Act. 6.The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that though