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

4 Ramesh Narayana Reddy (HUF) not occupied by assessee rather acquired with an intention of sale and the assessee has duly offered the capital gain on sale of these flats when they were completed sold. However, the AO made an addition of deemed rental income amounting to Rs.1.18 crores in the hands of the assessee ignoring the factual and legal

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.

249(4)(b) and accordingly dismissed the appeal for statistical purposes. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual derives income from the business of running a medical shop under the name and style

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

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

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.

4. The learned AO, the learned TPO, and the Hon'ble DRP have failed to appreciate that the transaction of sale of shares by the Appellant to Relay B.V., was reported as an international transaction in the Accountants Report for FY 2013-14 only to be compliant with the definition of associated enterprise under Section

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.

4. The learned AO, the learned TPO, and the Hon'ble DRP have failed to appreciate that the transaction of sale of shares by the Appellant to Relay B.V., was reported as an international transaction in the Accountants Report for FY 2013-14 only to be compliant with the definition of associated enterprise under Section

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

4. Search findings: 4.1 During the course of the search proceedings at the residence and the survey proceedings at business premises, various incriminating material were seized/impounded From the said documents, it is noticed that the assessee, Shri. T. Puttaraju, father of the assessee, is deriving income from house property, capital gains on entering into Joint ventures and also on sale

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

4. Search findings: 4.1 During the course of the search proceedings at the residence and the survey proceedings at business premises, various incriminating material were seized/impounded From the said documents, it is noticed that the assessee, Shri. T. Puttaraju, father of the assessee, is deriving income from house property, capital gains on entering into Joint ventures and also on sale

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

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment