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

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

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

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

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

4 of 19 4H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Under Section 48 of the Act, income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing66

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(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

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for assessment year 2010-11 is highly illegal, improper and unjust and also in the gross violation of the principles of natural justice. (3) The learned respondent seriously erred in not noticing the fact that in view of the pendency of the various legal litigation on the properties, the appellant

SMT.VANI SHREE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 250 of the Act 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 to be liable to be assessed to total income of Rs.2,16,39,499/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 143(3) of the Act, in the Assessment Year 2003-2004. 8. The CIT has allowed the average cost worked out by the assessing officer for the assessment year 2003 - 04 in the case of M/s Vectra Holdings P Limited, an associate company fo the appellant. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 143(3) of the Act, in the Assessment Year 2003-2004. 8. The CIT has allowed the average cost worked out by the assessing officer for the assessment year 2003 - 04 in the case of M/s Vectra Holdings P Limited, an associate company fo the appellant. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 143(3) of the Act, in the Assessment Year 2003-2004. 8. The CIT has allowed the average cost worked out by the assessing officer for the assessment year 2003 - 04 in the case of M/s Vectra Holdings P Limited, an associate company fo the appellant. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 143(3) of the Act, in the Assessment Year 2003-2004. 8. The CIT has allowed the average cost worked out by the assessing officer for the assessment year 2003 - 04 in the case of M/s Vectra Holdings P Limited, an associate company fo the appellant. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page

SHRI. MALLAPPA SHARANAPPA UDNOOR,GULBARGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

capital gain account within the period as prescribed under the section. The assessee sold agriculture land for a consideration of Rs.73,91,250 having 1/3 rd share amounting to Rs.25.53.750. The assessee did not file return of income within the due date as per Section 139. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order under Section 144 of the Act. The matter

SRI. THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 8(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act for A Y 2011- 12 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 itself liable to be assessed to total income of Rs.88,23,835/- as against returned income Rs.57

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

Capital Gains' as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anarkali Sarabai (supra) and Karthikeya Sarabai (supra) and is not exempt ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 22 of 31 from tax. Further the investment in preference shares is to be regarded as an investment in an unlisted and unquoted security and is therefore definitely exigible

M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), BANGLAOORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

Capital Gains' as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anarkali Sarabai (supra) and Karthikeya Sarabai (supra) and is not exempt ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 22 of 31 from tax. Further the investment in preference shares is to be regarded as an investment in an unlisted and unquoted security and is therefore definitely exigible

SHRI.N.R.RAVIKRISHNAN,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2007-08

250 options were exercised on 16.11.2005 and the remaining 6000 options were transferred as such (without exercising the options) under the option transfer agreement dated 07.03.2007. 1.7 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, the assessment of capital gains of Rs.20,41,672 as short term capital gains is to be deleted and the gains