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

capital gain. AR of the assessee also pointed out that in respect of the issue of rental income from plant and machinery, assessed by AO under the head IOS, the payee has wrongly mentioned that the TDS

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains (LTCG) for AY 2019-20. The CPC disallowed this set-off, affecting the deduction under Section 80G. For AY 2021-22, the assessee claimed TDS

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

Capital Gain” and the buyer has deducted TDS on the purchase of the property. Buyer has also furnished information as sought

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain income as per Section 50C of the Act. However,\nassessee did not make any submission against show cause notice issued. It\nwas verified from the return of income filed by the assessee that sale\nconsideration declared by the assessee was only Rs.58 lakhs. Accordingly\nassessee opted claiming indexation cost has declared LTCG of Rs.2,67,705/-.\nHowever TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU vs. ALAKANANDA PRINTERS (P) LTD, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and CO filed by the assessee in support of the Order of the CIT(A)

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

TDS. A search was conducted in the case of Bharath Beedi Works Pvt. Ltd., on 26.02.2020. During the course of search, a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was found. In the said JDA, the assessee is one of the co-owners of land under joint development. In the JDA, there were seven co-owners of the land measuring 4.7732 acres

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

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

capital gain\n\nRs.\n5,00,000/-\nRs.2,71,30,392/-\nRs.1,65,20,020/-\nRs.2,41,15,265/-\n\n22.\nThe above computed LTCG was offered by the assessee to tax in\nthe year under consideration.\n23.\nThe assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that for\nmaking sale of flats, he incurred commission expenses and legal expense\nof Rs.5

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

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

capital gain\n\nRs.\n5,00,000/-\nRs.2,71,30,392/-\nRs.1,65,20,020/-\nRs.2,41,15,265/-\n\n22. The above computed LTCG was offered by the assessee to tax in\nthe year under consideration.\n\n23. The assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that for\nmaking sale of flats, he incurred commission expenses and legal expense

MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

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

Capital gains.\n6. Assessee made the builder as party in the Sale Deeds and the\ntransaction indicates that the relationship is owner and builder when\nthe possession was handed over and sale consideration received.\nFurther no TDS

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

capital gain, if any arising on sale of land for Rs.1,30,00,000/- should have been assessed in the hands of the assessee but not in the hands of his Partnership Firm, M/s Hothur Steels as submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. A.O. held that the explanation given by the assessee that the land sold was not belonging

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS\nof not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance\ntax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present\ncase, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption\nthat that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate\nthe capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS\nof not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance\ntax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present\ncase, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption\nthat that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate\nthe capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

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

TDS, remaining amount was not subjected to TDS. As the payment made to the individual employees were less than the taxable limit. Hence, TDS for the remaining amount of Rs.1,09,40,705/- was not made. The Assessing Officer added 30% u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (wrongly u/s 37 claimed by the Assessing Officer) which

JYOTHY INDUSTRIES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

TDS. The assessee declared long-term capital gains from this acquisition, which were accepted. However, the AO denied credit for the TDS

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

gain was consistently treated as capital in nature in earlier years, and unrealized losses were carried forward and adjusted in subsequent years. The same treatment was continued in the year under appeal, and this consistent accounting approach was verified and accepted by the department. Hence, reopening the issue in revisionary proceedings is unjustified and contrary

VINAY KONCHADY SHENOY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

Capital Gain on sale of property to the extent of Rs.1,44,253/- 2.3 During the year, the assessee had sold residential property to the extent of Rs.77,50,000/- on 20.04.2019. Accordingly, the purchaser deducted TDS

BADERUNNISA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2023-24

TDS credit only to the proportion of capital gain offered by the assessee. Thereby, the CPC disallowed the claim of TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

SHRI. M.NANDA KUMAR, L/R SMT. JAYASHREE R,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

gain in accordance with the share of the assessee being one of the persons in the co-parceners. The Ld.AR further submitted that assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 54F which was denied for the reason that there was no construction of residential house which is an admitted fact. 5.7. The Ld.DR on the contrary submitted that the entire facts requires