SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

57,714/- The Appellant also prays for permission to add falter the grounds of Appeal before or during the courses of Appeal hearing.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30/09/2015 for the assessment year 2015-16 declaring Page 2 of 16 total income of Rs.12,50,950/-. The case

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon.” 21. From the above, it becomes clear that claim for any debt or part thereof shall be admissible

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon.” 21. From the above, it becomes clear that claim for any debt or part thereof shall be admissible

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon.” 21. From the above, it becomes clear that claim for any debt or part thereof shall be admissible

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon.” 21. From the above, it becomes clear that claim for any debt or part thereof shall be admissible

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon.” 21. From the above, it becomes clear that claim for any debt or part thereof shall be admissible

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section\n143(3) of the Act. For the sake of convenience copy of the reasons recorded\nwhich is placed at Paper Book Page Nos.72 to 73 is reproduced below:\nPage 18 of 21\nITA No.1181/Bang/2025\nAnnexure to notice u/s.142(1).\nYour case has been reopened for the following reasons.\n1. The long term capital gain on sale of land

MR. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

57,138/- is after set-off of long-term capital gains of Rs. 8,18,960/- with short term capital loss of Rs. 1,61,821/-. However, the taxable long term capital loss is Rs. 1,10,646/- which is computed as per the provisions of Section

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

57 ITR 306 CIT vs. Bhavnagar Trust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat HC) 69 ITR 278 8. Western states Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 80 ITR 21 9. 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303 11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC) 96 ITR 463 12. Brooke Bond

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

57 ITR 306 7. CIT vs. Bhavnagar Trust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat HC) 69 ITR 278 8. Western states Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 80 ITR 21 9. 10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303 11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC) 96 ITR 463 12. Brooke Bond

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to further add, alter or amend each one of the above grounds of appeal” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

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

57 ITR 306\n8. CIT vs. Bhavnagar Trust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat HC) 69 ITR 278\n9. Western states Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 80 ITR 21\n10. CIT v. Shrikishan Chandmal (Madhya Pradesh HC) 60 ITR 303\n11. CIT v. R. Dalmia (Delhi HC) 96 ITR 463\n12. Brooke Bond

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. BAGALUR KRISHNAIAH SETTY VIJAY SHANKER, BENGALURU

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

57,79,200/-. The\nassessee also deposited Rs. 1,09,00,000/- in capital gain account scheme.\nAccordingly, the assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 12,06,51,057/- as exempt\nu/s. 54 and offered the balance of Rs. 74,60,742/- as capital gain. The assessee,\nin support of the claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, furnished

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

capital borrowed for the purpose of business is to be allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income. The expression "for purposes of business or profession" occurring in section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is wider in scope than the expression ^For the purpose of earning income, profits or gains". Accordingly, expenditure voluntarily incurred and meeting the "commercial expediency

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

57,385/-\nRs.-1,59,260/-\n3.1 Wherein, the Poorva Fountain and the BTM Layout House\nassessee is Co-owner of the property and the Salarpuriya property,\nregistration is not yet done though the possession was given and\nassessee in receipt of rent being let out.\n3.2 Further, assessee sold the residential site bearing No. 390\nsituated at Sector

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

57,999 5.91% 10,83,02,321 6.17% 15,83,42,685 8.77% (PAT) Refer Note 1 Below Total income / 23,12,96,239 23,94,26,383 28,94,66,747 Assessed income Note-1: ITA No.531 & 532/Bang/2024 M/s. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore Page 10 of 36 Profit after tax @10% of the turnover

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 and business income. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and 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 and 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan produced the books of accounts and other details. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded the assessment under Section

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

57,51,34,75,210/- after claiming deduction under section 80G of Rs. 4,05,98,408/- and 80IAB of Rs. 585,09,09,819/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee also responded to the notices. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10AA