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

unexplained investment by the AO with respect to expenditure on property improvement – Rs.44,17,542 (Ground Nos. 3 & 4). (iii) CIT(A) giving directions to the AO without giving an opportunity to the AO in respect of the JDA entered into by the assessee and the calculation of capital gains

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

unexplained investment by the AO with respect to expenditure on property improvement – Rs.44,17,542 (Ground Nos. 3 & 4). (iii) CIT(A) giving directions to the AO without giving an opportunity to the AO in respect of the JDA entered into by the assessee and the calculation of capital gains

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

unexplained investment by the AO with respect to expenditure on property improvement – Rs.44,17,542 (Ground Nos. 3 & 4). (iii) CIT(A) giving directions to the AO without giving an opportunity to the AO in respect of the JDA entered into by the assessee and the calculation of capital gains

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

unexplained investment by the AO with respect to expenditure on property improvement – Rs.44,17,542 (Ground Nos. 3 & 4). (iii) CIT(A) giving directions to the AO without giving an opportunity to the AO in respect of the JDA entered into by the assessee and the calculation of capital gains

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

unexplained investment by the AO with respect to expenditure on property improvement – Rs.44,17,542 (Ground Nos. 3 & 4). (iii) CIT(A) giving directions to the AO without giving an opportunity to the AO in respect of the JDA entered into by the assessee and the calculation of capital gains

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

investment made towards purchase of a new residential house of Rs 58,80,000/- paid on or before 07/11/2022 (the due date for filing the return of income for A Y 2022-23) may please be allowed as aa deduction U/s 54. The Appellant earnestly requests and Pleads that since he has made payment

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case, a HUF, has filed its return of income declaring income from other sources and exempted LTCG. The assessee in the return of income has claimed exemption of long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,53,73,386/- under

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

unexplained and added the same u/s. 69 of the Act to the returned total income of Rs. 10,62,390/-. He submitted that the learned assessing officer has not disputed about the value of investments of Rs. 1,42,25,000 in residential house and investment in Rural Electrification Corporation Bonds (REC Bonds) and National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI

MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

capital and the same was standing as on 31.3.2011 in the hands of assessee and carried forward the same as on 1.4.2011 as follows: Land at Vamanjoor 898 - 20.40 cents Rs.10,41,500/- Land at Vamanjoor 2202 - 17.90 cents Rs. 9,28,000/- Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, Mangaluru Page 10 of 29 Land at Vamanjoor 2250 - 48.90 cents Rs.25

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

Unexplained investments. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income57, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain deposit scheme of any nationalized bank before the date of filing the return of income. In the present case, assessee has not adhered to this. On the other hand, assessee used the funds to purchase some non-agricultural land along with 3 other persons for a consideration of Rs.4 crores. Purchase of this non-agricultural land cannot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

capital gains u/s.48 of the Act. We further find that there is\nno evidence on record to show that the consideration over and above, what has\nbeen recorded in the sale deed, has been made by the assessee and in the\nabsencc of the same, no addition of undisclosed investment can be made by\ninvoking the provision of Section

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

unexplained expenditure and payments for ITA No.531 & 532/Bang/2024 M/s. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore Page 21 of 36 acquisition of land from land owners was found. Shri B.S. Shivarama, Director of the assessee company was confronted with the evidences and asked for explanation. In response to the same, Shri B.S. Shivarama admitted an amount of Rs.6.85 Crores as additional

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, there can \nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28] \n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition \nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the \nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also \nbad in law and needs to be deleted. \n\nC. The Third

PRADIP KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(7), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

capital gain on the full sale price of ₹ 61,00,000/-(net of cost & investment u/s 54), and simultaneously treated part of the same receipt as unexplained

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

investment made by Mr. Chandrashekhar Sukhapuri on behalf of the Assessee Rs. 50,00,000/- (7) Unexplained money based on material seized from residence of Mr. K Rajendran Rs. 2,30,00,000/- (8) Unexplained money based on material seized from residence of the Assessee Rs. 43,18,00,000/- (9) Unexplained money based on material seized from residence

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

unexplained in terms of section 69A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the nature and source of such transaction stands explained on the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. Without prejudice and not conceding that the sale of shares were in order, the learned assessing officer ought to have allowed the purchase cost incurred by the appellant

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: -

investments made in the shares itself is not proved by the assessee. Hence, the addition was made with reference to the entire sale consideration amounting to Rs.2,10,91,591/- as unexplained cash credit and brought to tax under Section 68 of the Act. 11. Aggrieved, assessee raised this issue before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed

SHRI. MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Muniyappa Muniraju, No. 94/6, 8Th Main, The Income Tax New Oxford School Officer, Road, Ward – 4 (3)(4), Begur Main Road, Bangalore. Hongasandra, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan: Abbpm4961A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G. Satyanarayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr)

capital gain of Rs.1,00,93,764/-. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence to justify incurrence of expenditure in re-investment of proceeds from sale of agricultural land. 2.5 The reasons of CIT(A) for rejection of admission evidence are incorrect, contrary to facts, bad in law and liable to be quashed