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

RAJIV KUMAR BHUTRA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiita. No. 48/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Rajiv Kumar Bhutra, No. 3, 3Rd Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Mysore Road, Ward – 5 (2) (4), Bangalore – 560 026. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aakpb9339F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Nitish Ranjan, Ca For Revenue : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai, Jm. Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/01/2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore. 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That, There Is A Delay In Filing Present Appeal Before This Tribunal Amounting To 1045 Days. 3. We Note That Assessee Has Not Filed Any Application For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit In Support Explaining The Delay Of 1045 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld.Ar At The Time Of Hearing Relied On Order Passed By Coordinate Smc Bench Of This Tribunal For Assessment Year 2014-15 In Assesses Own Case In Support.

condone the delay in filing both the appeals under consideration and admit them. 5. The solitary issue urged in both the appeals relate to assessment of longterm capital gain arising on sale of shares as income of the assessee rejecting the claim of long term

SRI.LOKESH M, ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

condonation of delay that these appeals are filed u/s. 263 of the Act. The assessee and his wife, Smt. Malathi Prakash sold a property in which they had half share each. The assesses filed their returns of income declaring long term capital gain

SRI.LOKESH M, LR OF SMT MALATHI LOKESH ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

condonation of delay that these appeals are filed u/s. 263 of the Act. The assessee and his wife, Smt. Malathi Prakash sold a property in which they had half share each. The assesses filed their returns of income declaring long term capital gain

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

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

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

long delay is that he did not know the correct legal position and he came to know about the same after the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Modi Food Products Ltd. Every individual is deemed to know the law of the land. He courts merely interpret

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

SHRI. RAJIV KUMAR BHUTRA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran“Smc” Assessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay in filing both the appeals under consideration and admit them. 5. The solitary issue urged in both the appeals relate to assessment of longterm capital gain arising on sale of shares as income of the assessee rejecting the claim of long term

SHRI. SANJIV BHUTRA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran“Smc” Assessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay in filing both the appeals under consideration and admit them. 5. The solitary issue urged in both the appeals relate to assessment of longterm capital gain arising on sale of shares as income of the assessee rejecting the claim of long term

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

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