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 – Rs.1,18,90,000 (iii) Unexplained deposits – Rs.1,16,28,191 (iv) Unexplained credit – Rs.4,37,21,950 (v) Cash deposit – Rs.76,000 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against this order of the AO however the same was dismissed by the CIT(A). The assessee contested the order of CIT(A) before

MR. MUPPURI DAMODAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above observations

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeymuppuri Damodar The Income Tax Officer #26/1, 7Th Main, Sb Colony Ward - 7(2)(5) Bsk Iii Stage, 7Th Block Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560085 Pan – Ahppd9356E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1060723928(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal As Not- Admitted On The Ground That The Applicable Advance Tax Has Not Been Paid By The Appellant Before The Filing Of The Present Appeal Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

capital gain on the consideration received towards her share (50%) as per the Joint Development Agreement. In the present case, the assessee is contending that he is in the business of running a small medical shop and his income from business and other sources is well below the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax. Therefore and case

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that

SHAMANNA REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Shamanna Reddy, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chowdeshwari Rice Building, Ward – 4(1)(3), Opp. Hi Look Bakery, Bengaluru. Kasavanahalli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru – 560 035. Pan : Ccwpr 8342 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Nischal, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024

capital gain was determined on sale of property. Accordingly, a demand was issued for a sum of Rs.24,58,377/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical grounds by invoking the provisions of section 249

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Assessee submitted that he is not liable for long-term capital gains since

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Assessee submitted that he is not liable for long-term capital gains since

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Assessee submitted that he is not liable for long-term capital gains since

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Assessee submitted that he is not liable for long-term capital gains since

ASIAN EARTH MOVERS,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

section 249(4) is NIL. 3. The impugned assessment order is bad in law and void: (i) Because, mere information that immovable property of the Appellant was sold for Rs 67,67,000/- did not lead to any inference of income escaping assessment, let alone any formation of 'reason to believe', which is a condition precedent for issue

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

capital gains on entering into Joint ventures and also on sale of some sites/properties. 4.2 Further, it is also noticed that Shri. T Puttaraju has invested in properties in his name as well as in the name of his son. The income from house property on the properties held in the name of his son, Shri. Vajramuni K.P is found

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

capital gains on entering into Joint ventures and also on sale of some sites/properties. 4.2 Further, it is also noticed that Shri. T Puttaraju has invested in properties in his name as well as in the name of his son. The income from house property on the properties held in the name of his son, Shri. Vajramuni K.P is found

M/S. PLAZA AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in substance and set aside to the file of AO for limited purpose of quantification of the amount of expenses and depreciation

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavplaza Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 5(1)(2) #41, Mantri House Bengaluru Vittal Mallya Road Vs. Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaccp0589Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. Present Assessee’S Appeal Is Arising From The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 08.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2004-25/1063981275(1).

249/- and business of Rs.97,23,869/-. The assessee set off the loss from other sources against the entire income from house property and capital gain to the extent of Rs. 1,32,25,117/- and thus declared Nil income. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the following reasons: - (a) Expenses incurred for earning exempt

NITESH KEKRE,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain and interest etc. The assessee for the A.Y. 2017-18 filed return of income as on 27th July 2017 declaring income at Rs. 2,06,36,780/- which included income earned outside India. The assessee against the tax liability claimed credit of foreign tax of Rs. 81,178/- only. The claim of foreign tax credit (FTC) was disallowed

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section

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

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section