DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

gain directly on the sale of flats in the respective\n assessment year (in A.Y. 2013-14 and in subsequent years).\n9.\nThe AO was of the view that on the date of JDA, the land\nproperty was transferred to builder/developer for construction which\namount to transfer of capital assets as per the provision of section

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

gain directly on the sale of flats in the respective\n assessment year (in A.Y. 2013-14 and in subsequent years).\n\n9. The AO was of the view that on the date of JDA, the land\nproperty was transferred to builder/developer for construction which\namount to transfer of capital assets as per the provision of section

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

capital creditors cannot be taxed as business income but must be adjusted against the block of assets. 9.13 It was further submitted that the foreign exchange gain was already considered in the profit before tax as per the audited financial statements. However, while computing taxable income, the assessee has reduced this gain to correctly align with the provisions of Section

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

260/- because of positive addition to\nthe income. However, while calculating the Tax on the above\nincome Ld. ITO took the returned Income of Rs. 13,26,600/- (in\npage No. 9) and arrived the correct taxation.\n3.5 Factually, on the ownership of the 3 properties, as on the\ndate of investment the assessee is not the owner

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

260 2013-14 1,01,22,000 2,46,73,294 2012-13 96,80,000 2,49,91,058

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

260 ITR 80. The AO has also stated that there was valid search conducted under section 132(1)(a),(b),(c) of the Act. The AO has not followed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain (supra). Therefore, Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is illegal. The learned

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

260 ITR 80. The AO has also stated that there was valid search conducted under section 132(1)(a),(b),(c) of the Act. The AO has not followed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain (supra). Therefore, Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is illegal. The learned

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

260 ITR 80. The AO has also stated that there was valid search conducted under section 132(1)(a),(b),(c) of the Act. The AO has not followed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain (supra). Therefore, Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is illegal. The learned

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to \n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

260 ITR 80. \n\niii. The authorities below have not discharged the burden of proving that \nthere is a valid search under section 132 [1] [a], [b] and [c] of the \nAct, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an \nassessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. \n\niv. The learned CIT(A) ought

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

section 153A of the Act are\nmaterially defective and consequently the entire proceedings\npursuant to such invalid notice are bad in law (For the A. Ys.\n2013-14 to 2017-18).\n\n10.\nThe disallowance of depreciation on goodwill is bad in law (For\nthe A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19).\na.\nThe appellant is a domestic company in engaged

BILESHIVALE MUDDANNA GOVARDHANA MURTHY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains in AY 2013-14. 5.9 However, after examining the reply and documents, the AO rejected the explanation of the assessee. The AO held that the issue is not whether a registered sale deed was executed, but whether there was a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. The AO opined that under section

BILESHIVALE MUDDANNA GOVARDHANA MURTHY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains in AY 2013-14. 5.9 However, after examining the reply and documents, the AO rejected the explanation of the assessee. The AO held that the issue is not whether a registered sale deed was executed, but whether there was a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. The AO opined that under section

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

section 153A of the Act are\nmaterially defective and consequently the entire proceedings\npursuant to such invalid notice are bad in law (For the A. Ys.\n2013-14 to 2017-18).\n\n10.\nThe disallowance of depreciation on goodwill is bad in law (For\nthe A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19).\n\na.\nThe appellant is a domestic company

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

section 153A of the Act are\nmaterially defective and consequently the entire proceedings\npursuant to such invalid notice are bad in law (For the A. Ys.\n2013-14 to 2017-18).\n\n10.\nThe disallowance of depreciation on goodwill is bad in law (For\nthe A.Ys.2013-14 to 2018-19).\n\na.\nThe appellant is a domestic company

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

260 ITR 80.\niii. The authorities below have not discharged the burden of proving that\nthere is a valid search under section 132 [1] [a], [b] and [c] of the\nAct, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an\nassessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law.\niv. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

260 ITR 80. iii. The authorities below have not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid search under section 132 [1] [a], [b] and [c] of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

260 ITR 80.\niii. The authorities below have not discharged the burden of proving that\nthere is a valid search under section 132 [1] [a], [b] and [c] of the\nAct, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an\nassessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law.\niv. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

260 ITR 80.\niii. The authorities below have not discharged the burden of proving that\nthere is a valid search under section 132 [1] [a], [b] and [c] of the\nAct, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an\nassessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law.\niv. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated