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

3) of the Act and the department treated the gain under similar facts as long term capital gain. Therefore, in view of the principle of consistency also the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. So far as the last issue as to the taxation of income from flat instead of plant and machinery the CIT(A) held

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

3 of 79 course of search certain documents pertaining to the Appellant were found and seized, namely the sale deed entered into by Appellant with Sri Padmesh for purchase of agricultural lands and sale deed between Appellant and Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society (‘VBEHCS’). As a result, proceedings under section 153C of the 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

3 of 79 course of search certain documents pertaining to the Appellant were found and seized, namely the sale deed entered into by Appellant with Sri Padmesh for purchase of agricultural lands and sale deed between Appellant and Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society (‘VBEHCS’). As a result, proceedings under section 153C of the 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

3 of 79 course of search certain documents pertaining to the Appellant were found and seized, namely the sale deed entered into by Appellant with Sri Padmesh for purchase of agricultural lands and sale deed between Appellant and Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society (‘VBEHCS’). As a result, proceedings under section 153C of the 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

3 of 79 course of search certain documents pertaining to the Appellant were found and seized, namely the sale deed entered into by Appellant with Sri Padmesh for purchase of agricultural lands and sale deed between Appellant and Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society (‘VBEHCS’). As a result, proceedings under section 153C of the 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

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

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

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

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in appreciating that the asset in this case was held for business purpose and depreciation had been claimed and Capital Gains is to be worked out as per Sec.50(2). “ 4. The above issues were already decided by the ITAT in ITA No.2096/Bang/1992 by order dated 20.7.1995. On a reference by the ITAT

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

3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and assessed total income at Rs.1,05,90,262 making the following additions:- Unproved agricultural income 13,49,339 Disallowance of interest payment and municipal tax under the head house property (607290 + 22709) 6,29,999 Long term capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account

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

3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and assessed total income at Rs.1,05,90,262 making the following additions:- Unproved agricultural income 13,49,339 Disallowance of interest payment and municipal tax under the head house property (607290 + 22709) 6,29,999 Long term capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account

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

3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and assessed total income at Rs.1,05,90,262 making the following additions:- Unproved agricultural income 13,49,339 Disallowance of interest payment and municipal tax under the head house property (607290 + 22709) 6,29,999 Long term capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account

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

3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and assessed total income at Rs.1,05,90,262 making the following additions:- Unproved agricultural income 13,49,339 Disallowance of interest payment and municipal tax under the head house property (607290 + 22709) 6,29,999 Long term capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account

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

3 of 6 assessing officer has explained the addition made by him in his order dated 13.03.2015, in vide para 6 to 8:- "The case laws relied upon by the assessee can be distinguished. in the case of Sri. D. Anand Basappa V. ITO, the assessee being an HUF has sold a residential house and purchased two residential flats adjacent

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

3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in holding that the appeal filed was not maintainable being hit by the provisions of section 249[4][b] of the Act as the appellant had not paid amount in equivalent to the Advance-tax without appreciating that the provisions of Section 249[4B] of the Act were wholly inapplicable since