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

ab initio. 1.2 In any case, the appellate order passed in the name of deceased assesse, in spite of specific intimation is bad in law and such order is liable to be quashed. 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has also erred in confirming the reopening of assessment by learned Assessing Officer. The conditions precedent for issue

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

capital gains by adopting deemed\nsale consideration at Rs. 26,89,99,677/-. However, the assessee has\nfailed to do so. It has also been seen that the assessee has furnished\nincorrect details regarding sale consideration of one property sold and\ndeclared in the ITR as per the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax\nAct

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

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

capital gains by adopting deemed\nsale consideration at Rs. 26,89,99,677/-. However, the assessee has\nfailed to do so. It has also been seen that the assessee has furnished\nincorrect details regarding sale consideration of one property sold and\ndeclared in the ITR as per the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax\nAct

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

35 are not being carried out in :accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to -which such 'university, college or other institution was approved, he may, after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed withdrawal to the concerned university, college or other institution, recommend to the Central Government to withdraw the approval and that Government

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

ab- initio (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). d. The notices issued under section 153A of the Act are materially defective and consequently the entire proceedings pursuant to such invalid notice are bad in law (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). 10. The disallowance of depreciation on goodwill is bad in law (For the A.Ys

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

ab- initio (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). d. The notices issued under section 153A of the Act are materially defective and consequently the entire proceedings pursuant to such invalid notice are bad in law (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). 10. The disallowance of depreciation on goodwill is bad in law (For the A.Ys

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

ab- initio (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). d. The notices issued under section 153A of the Act are materially defective and consequently the entire proceedings pursuant to such invalid notice are bad in law (For the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18). 10. The disallowance of depreciation on goodwill is bad in law (For the A.Ys

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

ab initio and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed. 5. No Document Identification Number (‘DIN’) on the directions issued by the Hon’ble DRP 5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP erred in not quoting a valid computer-generated

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

ab-\ninitio (For the A.Ys.2013-14 to 2017-18).\n\nd.\nThe notices issued under 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

MR. JAGANATH RAMACHANDRA JAMADAR ,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BIDAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

capital gains for the AY 2017-18 which is not in terms of section 45(2) of the Act. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO had grossly erred in considering the cost of acquisition at Rs 3,00,000 and not Rs 3,35,000 as incurred by me towards

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

ab initio.\n\n8.5 The ld. AR concluded by praying that the Hon’ble Tribunal may\nkindly hold that the assessments made for A.Ys.2020-21 and 2021-22\nare invalid in law as they were completed beyond the period of limitation\nprescribed under section 153B of the Act, and accordingly, the same\nmay be annulled

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

35. The Assessee submitted that the decision of the AO is wrong, on facts, principles and procedure on the following lines:. i) It is an admitted fact that these expenses were incurred for promoting an event. ii) The AO has held that this expense is towards brand promotion and hence capital in nature. iii) It is settled principle, upheld

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Income - Tax Act by disregarding the facts, evidences and reasons and merely on the basis of suspicion, presumptions and without due and independent application of mind on the generalised report of the Investigation Wing of Kolkata, in total defiance of natural justice by denying sharing of the information and evidences collected behind

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

ab initio. 5. The Ld. AO failed to discharge the burden of proof that the Appellant has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income by bringing single incriminating, unambiguous, cogent and positive evidences beyond any doubt than that of the Appellant's evidence, not brought out the satisfaction with tangible materials pertaining to the relevant assessment year as required

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

ab initio.\n8.5 The ld. AR concluded by praying that the Hon’ble Tribunal may\nkindly hold that the assessments made for A.Ys.2020-21 and 2021-22\nare invalid in law as they were completed beyond the period of limitation\nprescribed under section 153B of the Act, and accordingly, the same\nmay be annulled.\n9. On the contrary

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

35. any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the course of hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.622/Bang/2025: The appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

35. any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the course of hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.622/Bang/2025: The appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income