CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

condone the delay of two days in filing the appeal. 4. The assessee is an individual. He sold agricultural lands belonging to him in Sy.No.165/17, Doraisanipalaya, Bilekahalli Village, Begur Hobli for a consideration of Rs.6,95,00,000 under an agreement dated 06.09.2007 whereby possession of the property was also delivered to the purchaser

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

delay in construction was attributable to assessee but was beyond the control of assessee since the construction was carried out by the builder. 16. Assessee in the synopsis filed before this Tribunal gave details of date wise payments, made to the builder for acquisition of property as under: Payments made prior to sale of original asset a) Date Amount

T. SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

capital gain denying the claim u/s 54 of the IT Act, 1961 and also not considering the cost of acquisition of Rs.23.80 lakhs claimed by the assessee. 2. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 333 days. Pleading of the assessee in the affidavit filed is that he was pursuing a proceeding before the 2 ITA No.323

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits. 2 ITA No.293/Bang/2020. Dr.Sheela Puttabuddi. 3. The solitary issue argued is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming denial of exemption u/s 54 of the I.T.Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a Doctor by profession. For the assessment year

SRI JOSEPH K.ZACHARIAH ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.879/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Capital Gain account, could not be done in view of the tax withheld by the buyer of the property, which was yet to be refunded by the department. 3. Application u/s.119(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was made to the CBDT on 01.2.2014 i.e. before the filing of the return of income for condonation of delay

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

capital gains as returned by the Appellant. They failed to prove their contention with material evidence to that effect. Hence the addition of Page 2 of 15 Rs.12,54,98,299 made as revenue profits deserves to be deleted. 3. The Learned Authorities Below have erred in restricting the credit to be given to TDS at Rs.39

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now we will proceed on merits of grounds raised by the assessee. The first ground is with regard to the disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to EPF beyond due date, by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In our opinion

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4