M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

B. C. Srinivasa Shetty [1981] 128 ITR 294. The rationale of the decision was that goodwill being a self-generated asset and not costing anything in terms of money, the gains could not be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. By the Finance Act, 1987, the method of computing the cost of acquisition as well

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

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40th Cross, 4th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: CXKPS1454H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ramasubramanian, CA : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue

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

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

section 153C are bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- a. CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (84 taxmann.com 290); b. CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (62 taxmann.com 391) (Del); c. CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108) (Kar); d. CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (73 taxmann.com 149)(Kar); e. Pr. CIT v. Allied Perfumers

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

section 153C are bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- a. CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (84 taxmann.com 290); b. CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (62 taxmann.com 391) (Del); c. CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108) (Kar); d. CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (73 taxmann.com 149)(Kar); e. Pr. CIT v. Allied Perfumers

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

section 153C are bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- a. CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (84 taxmann.com 290); b. CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (62 taxmann.com 391) (Del); c. CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108) (Kar); d. CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (73 taxmann.com 149)(Kar); e. Pr. CIT v. Allied Perfumers

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

section 153C are bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- a. CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (84 taxmann.com 290); b. CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (62 taxmann.com 391) (Del); c. CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108) (Kar); d. CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (73 taxmann.com 149)(Kar); e. Pr. CIT v. Allied Perfumers

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

4 of 82 years from the date of passing the conversion orders. Therefore, by this action also it is deemed that the assessee had put to use the converted land for the intended purposes within two years from the date of order. This fact has once again been confirmed from the recital of the agreement to sell, dated 16.07.2007 entered

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

4 of 82 years from the date of passing the conversion orders. Therefore, by this action also it is deemed that the assessee had put to use the converted land for the intended purposes within two years from the date of order. This fact has once again been confirmed from the recital of the agreement to sell, dated 16.07.2007 entered

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

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 the appellant had challenged the very reopening of the assessment as welt as the computation of the Capital Gains

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

SMT PUTTAMMA ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the assessment of a sum of Rs.15,62,222/- made by the learned A.O. as long term capital gains on erroneous impression of law and facts that the physical possession is given attracting the provisions of section 2[47][v] of the Act, under

CHINNAIAH (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the assessment of a sum of Rs.15,62,222/- made by the learned A.O. as long term capital gains on erroneous impression of law and facts that the physical possession is given attracting the provisions of section 2[47][v] of the Act, under

SRI NAGARAJU ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), MYSORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the assessment of a sum of Rs.15,62,222/- made by the learned A.O. as long term capital gains on erroneous impression of law and facts that the physical possession is given attracting the provisions of section 2[47][v] of the Act, under

SRI SHIVANNA ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the assessment of a sum of Rs.15,62,222/- made by the learned A.O. as long term capital gains on erroneous impression of law and facts that the physical possession is given attracting the provisions of section 2[47][v] of the Act, under

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