DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

section was quoted correctly by the deductor.” 3 Ramesh Narayana Reddy (HUF) 3. At the outset the revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) on three counts. a. NAFC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 1,81,01,752/- on account of deemed rental income from the flats owned by assessee, these flats were allotted

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains tax are not attracted. 6. Alternatively and without prejudice the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 ought to have held that in the absence of registered deed of conveyance no right, title or interest in the immovable property can be transferred attracting the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 7. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains tax are not attracted. 6. Alternatively and without prejudice the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 ought to have held that in the absence of registered deed of conveyance no right, title or interest in the immovable property can be transferred attracting the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 7. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains tax are not attracted. 6. Alternatively and without prejudice the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 ought to have held that in the absence of registered deed of conveyance no right, title or interest in the immovable property can be transferred attracting the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 7. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains tax are not attracted. 6. Alternatively and without prejudice the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 ought to have held that in the absence of registered deed of conveyance no right, title or interest in the immovable property can be transferred attracting the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 7. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gains'. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment under section 153C is bad in law since the additions made do not arising out of ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 7 of 82 any material seized during the search. An assessment can be made under section 153C of the Act only if there is a satisfaction that the books of account

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gains'. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment under section 153C is bad in law since the additions made do not arising out of ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 7 of 82 any material seized during the search. An assessment can be made under section 153C of the Act only if there is a satisfaction that the books of account

M/S. ANUPAM RANJAN (HUF),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

section 54/54F ought to have been given to the appellant. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Rs.18,16,540/- learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the capital gain as offered by the Appellant and ought to have deleted the impugned additions. 6. Without prejudice, the impugned additions Rs.18,16,540/- confirmed

ITO, DAVANGERE vs. M/S MAGANAHALLI STEEL CORPORATION, DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 1989-90

249. It was claimed by the assessee/MSC, that the firm at that time consisting of the four partners viz., Shri M. V. Mahendraswamy, M.V. Narendranath, M.V.Rajendranath and Smt.M.R. Jayashree was dissolved with effect from 30.09.1983. A copy of the said deed of dissolution dated 01.10.1983 was filed on the record of the AO. According to the said dissolution deed, whereas

SHRI. DEV KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2016-17

249 Taxable Capital gain 35,00,000 1,16,160 8. According to the AO, the Assessee did not acquire the undivided share of land or the built up area and therefore there was no capital asset that was transferred by the Assessee and hence the gain in question cannot be considered as chargeable to tax u/s.45 of the Income

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

249 and 224 of the paper-book respectively. He further submitted that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee company and had not been disputed by the revenue. Any incidental benefit that may arise to any other person or entity cannot be a bar for allowance of expenditure under section

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

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 54B. 33. The CIT(Appeals) remanded the documents of sale and purchase to the AO and called for his remand report. The CIT(A) noted that the AO in the remand report observed that working of long and short term capital gain arising out of the transactions along with the transactions statement based on evidences filed, appeared

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 54B. 33. The CIT(Appeals) remanded the documents of sale and purchase to the AO and called for his remand report. The CIT(A) noted that the AO in the remand report observed that working of long and short term capital gain arising out of the transactions along with the transactions statement based on evidences filed, appeared

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 54B. 33. The CIT(Appeals) remanded the documents of sale and purchase to the AO and called for his remand report. The CIT(A) noted that the AO in the remand report observed that working of long and short term capital gain arising out of the transactions along with the transactions statement based on evidences filed, appeared

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 54B. 33. The CIT(Appeals) remanded the documents of sale and purchase to the AO and called for his remand report. The CIT(A) noted that the AO in the remand report observed that working of long and short term capital gain arising out of the transactions along with the transactions statement based on evidences filed, appeared

SHASHIDHAR PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Shashidhar Patil, The Income Tax “Pratham” 508, 3Rd Block, Officer, 15Th Main, Koramangala, Vs. Ward – 6 (2) (1), Bangalore – 560 034. Bangalore. Pan: Acjpp2694Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M. Rajasekhar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019

section is very clear regarding the fact that it is the capital gain from 'a' long term capital asset and the assessee has claimed exemption on two properties which is not the intention of legislation. In view of the above, the assessee is not entitled for exemption under sec, 54F in respect two properties and the exemption is restricted

MS.DIVYA S RAO ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 249[4B] of the Act were wholly inapplicable since the appellant had challenged the very reopening of the assessment as welt as the computation of the Capital Gains