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

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

6) of the Act to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP) and obtained the information that the property that was sold was a vacant land and not a residential house. 10. Before the A.O., the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F instead of section 54 of the Act. Deduction u/s 54F of the Act is available on sale of any capital asset

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

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 of Rs. 1,18,01,752 as deemed

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.

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 PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Ld.CIT

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

6 passed under 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

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

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 was carried to this Tribunal and vide order dt.23.12.2008 in ITA No.1021/Bang/2008, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer with

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

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

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

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

6 are with regard to disallowance of Rs.18,15,000/- paid to Bengaluru Development Authority towards the development charges and Rs.11,54,250/- paid towards brokerage charges paid while computing the capital gain in the hands of the assessee. The AO disallowed this claim of the assessee on the reason that this has not been claimed in the original return

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

6. The CIT has not specified any basis or provided any reason why he choose to disallow Rs 82,76,520 and allow Rs 3,17,23,480 out of the Rs 4,00,00,000 paid by the appellant to M/s Morgan Sranley as consulting fee. 7. The CIT has erred in upholding the disallowance of the average cost

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

6. The CIT has not specified any basis or provided any reason why he choose to disallow Rs 82,76,520 and allow Rs 3,17,23,480 out of the Rs 4,00,00,000 paid by the appellant to M/s Morgan Sranley as consulting fee. 7. The CIT has erred in upholding the disallowance of the average cost

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

6. The CIT has not specified any basis or provided any reason why he choose to disallow Rs 82,76,520 and allow Rs 3,17,23,480 out of the Rs 4,00,00,000 paid by the appellant to M/s Morgan Sranley as consulting fee. 7. The CIT has erred in upholding the disallowance of the average cost

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

6. The CIT has not specified any basis or provided any reason why he choose to disallow Rs 82,76,520 and allow Rs 3,17,23,480 out of the Rs 4,00,00,000 paid by the appellant to M/s Morgan Sranley as consulting fee. 7. The CIT has erred in upholding the disallowance of the average cost

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

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital gain treated as business income 1,65,336/- 6. Additions as per seized material procured 3,80,00,250/- during the course of search and seizure of Shri N.C. Mahesh (A/NCM/2 - Loose slips) Total 6,43,11,260/- 9.3 The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that all the above additions except addition of Rs.3,80,00,250