MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

gains in view of section 2(14) read with sections 45 and 48 of the Act ? " 10.5The Hon'ble Court after considering the averments of both parties and the orders of the authorities below held as under :• "5. We find from the record that the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal followed an earlier ruling of the Tribunal

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SHRI. M.R. ANANDARAM (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

gains in view of section 2(14) read with sections 45 and 48 of the Act?" 7.3.5. After taking into account the submissions of the either of the party and also the perusal of the orders of the authorities below, the Hon'ble Court had held as under: "5. We find from the record that the Appellate Commissioner as well

SRI. SWAMIAPPAN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

gains of Rs. 76,20,419/- as reduced by the cost of acquisition was brought to tax. 5.5 He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has concurred with the view of the AO that the lands sold were not in the nature of agricultural lands without appreciating the documents submitted by the Assessee obtained from the Revenue Department of Tamil

SMT. SWAMIAPPAN PUNITHAVATHI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

gains of Rs. 76,20,419/- as reduced by the cost of acquisition was brought to tax. 5.5 He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has concurred with the view of the AO that the lands sold were not in the nature of agricultural lands without appreciating the documents submitted by the Assessee obtained from the Revenue Department of Tamil

SRI. SWAMIAPPAN ARUL KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

gains of Rs. 76,20,419/- as reduced by the cost of acquisition was brought to tax. 5.5 He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has concurred with the view of the AO that the lands sold were not in the nature of agricultural lands without appreciating the documents submitted by the Assessee obtained from the Revenue Department of Tamil

SRI. SWAMIAPPAN ANAND KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

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

gains of Rs. 76,20,419/- as reduced by the cost of acquisition was brought to tax. 5.5 He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has concurred with the view of the AO that the lands sold were not in the nature of agricultural lands without appreciating the documents submitted by the Assessee obtained from the Revenue Department of Tamil

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that assessment u/s. 153C have been made in the case of the trustees relying upon the very same material. Under such circumstances, the presumption under section 292C gets automatically rebutted. Section 153C(1) states that where the Assessing Officer

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that assessment u/s. 153C have been made in the case of the trustees relying upon the very same material. Under such circumstances, the presumption under section 292C gets automatically rebutted. Section 153C(1) states that where the Assessing Officer

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that assessment u/s. 153C have been made in the case of the trustees relying upon the very same material. Under such circumstances, the presumption under section 292C gets automatically rebutted. Section 153C(1) states that where the Assessing Officer

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that assessment u/s. 153C have been made in the case of the trustees relying upon the very same material. Under such circumstances, the presumption under section 292C gets automatically rebutted. Section 153C(1) states that where the Assessing Officer

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that assessment u/s. 153C have been made in the case of the trustees relying upon the very same material. Under such circumstances, the presumption under section 292C gets automatically rebutted. Section 153C(1) states that where the Assessing Officer

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that assessment u/s. 153C have been made in the case of the trustees relying upon the very same material. Under such circumstances, the presumption under section 292C gets automatically rebutted. Section 153C(1) states that where the Assessing Officer

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that assessment u/s. 153C have been made in the case of the trustees relying upon the very same material. Under such circumstances, the presumption under section 292C gets automatically rebutted. Section 153C(1) states that where the Assessing Officer

M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, The Deputy #14-7-1005, Scdcc Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Head Office Building, Central Circle – 1, Kodialbail, Vs. Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. Pan: Aaatn7594E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate & Assessee By Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence. Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit [A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Disallowance Of The Exemption Claimed U/S.11 Of The Act

4A] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 7. The learned CIT[A] ought not to have rejected the plea of the appellant that the activities of the appellant were examined in course of the earlier assessments framed and hence, a different view ought not to have been taken in violation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

4A,, section 35 and\nsection 37 of the Wealth-tax Act. 1957 (27 of 1957). shall, with\nnecessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they\napply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under\nsub-section (1) of section 16/1 of that Act.-\n5.3 Therefore, it is quite clear that upon receipt of objection from

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

4a\nManch. halli\n48\n1A\nManch. halli\n20,01,567\n34\n3A 3G Manch. halli\n46/2\n16G\nManph. halli\n15.11.2006\n15.11.2006 9,16,00,000\n54\n10\nManch. halli\n14,88,915\n47\n2A 4G Manch. halli\n54\n38G\nManch. halli\n46/2\n2A\nManch. halli\n26,30,468\n47\n21.5G\nManch. halli\n46/1\n18.5G\nManch. halli\n03.02.2007\nPage

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE vs. NADAKRISHNA THIMMAIAH, BANGALORE

4a\nManch. halli\n48\n1A\nManch. halli\n20,01,567\n34\n3A 3G\nManch. halli\n46/2\n16G\nManph. halli\n15.11.2006\n15.11.2006 9,16,00,000\n54\n10\nManch. halli\n14,88,915\n47\n2A 4G\nManch. halli\n54\n38G\nManch. halli\n46/2\n2A\nManch. halli\n26,30,468\n47\n21.5G\nManch. halli\n46/1\n18.5G\nManch. halli\n03.02.2007\nITA Nos.130/Bang/2023\nM/s

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

capital gain. Therefore, \nthere can be no protective assessment.” \n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the entire protective addition \nof Rs.86,95,409/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the absence of a \nsubstantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also bad in law and \nneeds to be deleted. \n\nIn any case

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

gains attributable to revaluation of the asset is not subject to MAT liability. It is, therefore, proposed to amend section 115JB to provide that the book profit for the purpose of section 115JB shall be increased by the amount standing in the revaluation reserve relating to the revalued asset which has been retired or disposed, if the same