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

condone the delay for 4 days in both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.532/Bang/2024 (AY 2015-16): 2. Facts of the issue in this appeal are that the appellant, engaged in real estate project development in Bangalore and affiliated with various grot+ companies and firms, was subject to a search and seizure operation under Section

SARITHA FLAVINA DSOUZA,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The issue raised by the assessee on grounds of appeal pertains to the addition of long-term capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 6. We, first, take up appeal No.696/Bang/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 7. The grounds raised in ITA No.696/Bang/2023 is reproduced as under:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,45,00,000/- made towards premium on preference shares

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 6. We, first, take up appeal No.696/Bang/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 7. The grounds raised in ITA No.696/Bang/2023 is reproduced as under:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,45,00,000/- made towards premium on preference shares

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

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

long delay naturally casts a heavier burden on the applicant to furnish cogent, Page 6 of 19 credible, and convincing explanations. The proof required becomes stricter in proportion to the delay. The longer the time elapsed, the stronger the justification that must be put forth. Hence, length is instructive in determining the degree of scrutiny, but it is not determinative

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

long delay naturally casts a heavier burden on the applicant to furnish cogent, Page 6 of 19 credible, and convincing explanations. The proof required becomes stricter in proportion to the delay. The longer the time elapsed, the stronger the justification that must be put forth. Hence, length is instructive in determining the degree of scrutiny, but it is not determinative

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

long\ndelay naturally casts a heavier burden on the applicant to furnish\ncogent, credible, and convincing explanations. The proof required\nbecomes stricter in proportion to the delay. The longer the time\nelapsed, the stronger the justification that must be put forth.\nHence, length is instructive in determining the degree of scrutiny,\nbut it is not determinative of the outcome.\n133

MS. PUSPHA RAO PAMIDI,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahums. Pushpa Rao Pamidi Vs Dcit, Circle - 2(1) No. 156/1, C/O T. Viswanath & Co Bengaluru Sharada Mansion, 2Nd Floor R V Road, V V Puram Bengaluru 560004 Pan – Bhhpp1695K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sathish S., Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.07.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit We Find That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Cannot Be Attributed To Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay Of Four Days & Proceed To Dispose Of The Case On Merits.

condone the delay of four days and proceed to dispose of the case on merits. 2 Ms. Pushpa Rao Pamidi 3. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - “1. The learned Assessing Officer had erred in passing the order as passed by him and the Directions given by the Dispute resolution Panel -2, Bangalore (DRP in short

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

long-term capital gains of Rs.43,61,72,341/- was brought to tax. Thus, a total amount of Rs.52,22,60,152/- was assessed to tax. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act had also been levied by the assessing authority. 2.3 The original assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed

RANGANATH ASHOK MEHARWADE,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), HUBBALI

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

long term capital gain without allowing the indexed cost of the purchase value of the land the indexed cost of amount spent on the development of the land and other expenses involved in respect of the property is also not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the various grounds and also the written submission

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

long term capital gains by adopting deemed\nsale consideration at Rs. 26,89,99,677/-. However, the assessee has\nfailed to do so. It has also been seen that the assessee has furnished\nincorrect details regarding sale consideration of one property sold and\ndeclared in the ITR as per the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax\nAct

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

long term capital gains by adopting deemed\nsale consideration at Rs. 26,89,99,677/-. However, the assessee has\nfailed to do so. It has also been seen that the assessee has furnished\nincorrect details regarding sale consideration of one property sold and\ndeclared in the ITR as per the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax\nAct

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

term "profits and gains' would mean gross revenue receipts less actual expenses i.e excluding depreciation and investment allowance, etc as the same are not actual expense and hence need to be excluded. The appellant submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has provided the interpretation of the wording "profits and gains" for the purpose of section 80HH. As the wording

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

term "profits and gains' would mean gross revenue receipts less actual expenses i.e excluding depreciation and investment allowance, etc as the same are not actual expense and hence need to be excluded. The appellant submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has provided the interpretation of the wording "profits and gains" for the purpose of section 80HH. As the wording

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

long delay\nis that he did not know the correct legal position and he came to\nknow about the same after the decision of the Allahabad High\nCourt in the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. V. Modi Food\nProducts Ltd. Every individual is deemed to know the law of the\nland. He courts merely interpret

DEVAPPA MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

condone the delay in fling the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal which read as follows:- “1. The Learned First Appellate Authority erred in upholding the deduction of entire cost u/s 48(ii) of the Act disregarding the facts of the case as per which the Appellant was entitled

RAGHU BELAGODU(HUF),BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU - 2 , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

long term capital gains for receiving compensation from the concerned authority-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. It is contended that the petitioner was unaware of the exemption for NC: 2024:KHC:8023 deduction of tax deducted at source as well as payment of tax in respect of the land acquisition compensation received by her and when she came to know