SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issues in all these four appeals isarising out of the common Joint development agreement, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. First, we take up the ITA No.963/Bang/2025 for the AY 2021-22, wherein the assessee has raised the following

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issues in all these four appeals isarising out of the common Joint development agreement, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. First, we take up the ITA No.963/Bang/2025 for the AY 2021-22, wherein the assessee has raised the following

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1963 (hereafter the Act) for A.Ys.\n2019-20 & 2021-22 dated 19/06/2025 and 29/08/2025.\n2. First, we take up assessee's appeal in ITA No. 2194/Bang/2025\nfor the Assessment Year 2019-20\n3. The issue raised by the assessee is that the CPC erred in\nadjusting the STT suffered short term capital loss

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 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 and raised the following grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

250 of the Act dated 30.6.2024 passed by the\nld. CIT(A) Bangalore 15 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of\nthe case.\n2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned Appellate order\nconfirming the additions of alleged Business income amounting to\nRs.111,53,50,377/- for the A.Y.2017-18 on the ground of alleged\nexchange

SHRI. THIMMAIAH SURESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2018 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 6(2)(1) treating a business income a sum of Rs. 2,33,19,841/ - as against capital gain a sum of Rs. 83,39,250

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains under this anti-avoidance provision. It is a case of a curative amendment to take care of unintended consequences of the scheme of section 50C. xi. Parliament has introduced third proviso in section 50C(1) of the Act, as per which the difference in stamp duty valuation and actual consideration should be ignored, if it is less than

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

250 of the Act by the learned CIT(A), NFAC to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed or in the alternative the addition of Rs.1,09,55,534/- made under section 10AA and consequential levy of tax including interest thereon be deleted. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds / sub-grounds are independent and without prejudice

SHRI VANKADARI CHINNA REDDEPPA CHETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

section 250 of the Act dated 04.11.2022 by treating the capital gains arising from sale of residential flats at Ramya

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

250 r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") dated 07.12.2022 for Assessment Year 2012-13 in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The Appellant denies herself liable to be assessed on a total

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act") in so far as it confirms the additions/adjustments made by the learned Assessing Officer ("Ld AO"), is contrary to law and facts of the case Page 2 of 8 and is passed in contravention of principles of natural justice. B. GROUNDS IN RELATION TO SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for A.Y. 2016-17 by order dated 29.08.2022. Page 2 of 12 2. The impugned order was emanated from the order of Ld. DCIT, Circle – 1, Bellary (in brevity the AO), order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, order dated 19.12.2018. 3. The assessee has taken the following

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain of Rs. 1,51,74,000/-. The assessee reinvested this amount in a new residential unit and claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer denied this exemption, stating the assessee owned more than one residential property at the time of transfer.", "held": "The Tribunal held that on the date of transfer

MR. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for the assessment year 2020-21 dated 16.3.2023. The only issue in this appeal is with regard to taxability of Rs.6,57,138/- declared under the head “Profit & gains of business”. 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and Management Consultant having income under

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

250 under the head ‘other discount’. The accountant was asked who submitted that to substantiate the above sum, she needs time. This was as per Q.6 of her statement recorded u/s. 132 of the Act. Further in answer to Q.10 where also the same question arose, the accountant stated that it needs to be reconciled. The partner of the assessee

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

250 under the head ‘other discount’. The accountant was asked who submitted that to substantiate the above sum, she needs time. This was as per Q.6 of her statement recorded u/s. 132 of the Act. Further in answer to Q.10 where also the same question arose, the accountant stated that it needs to be reconciled. The partner of the assessee

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short\n'The Act'). Since both these appeals and the stay petition are of the\nsame assessee for the different assessment years, these are clubbed\ntogether, heard together and disposed of by this common order for\nthe sake of convenience and brevity.\nITA No.2059/Bang/2024 (AY 2016-17):\n2. First, we take

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

250 of the Act for the assessment years 2017- 18 and 2018-19. ITA Nos.696 & 718/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 13 2. Since common issues/facts for consideration are involved in both the years under consideration including the figures, both the appeals are being disposed of by way of a common order. Therefore, the view to be taken for assessment year