SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

45,591\n| 5,86,03,541/-\n| 2017-18\n| 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n| 1,36,81,870/-\n| 91,75,100\n| 2,28,56,970/-\n| 2018-19\n| 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n| 4,05,85,590/-\n| 1,53,09,694\n| 5,58,95,234/-\n| 2019-20\n| 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- |\n| 2017-18 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- |\n| 2018-19 | 153C dtd.\n27.09.2021 | 4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0 The appeals

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n5.0\nThe appeals

SHRI. G. K RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

45,591\n5,86,03,541/-\n2017-18\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n1,36,81,870/-\n91,75,100\n2,28,56,970/-\n2018-19\n153C dtd.\n27.09.2021\n4,05,85,590/-\n1,53,09,694\n5,58,95,234/-\n2019-20\n143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n1,01,56,742/-\n1,93,23,032\n2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 234D of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax 6. Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

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

condone the delay of 41 days caused in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is a company incorporated under Companies Act with the main object to Manufacture & sale of Cancer Medicine. The assessee has an objective of constructing a Big Cancer Hospital to provide

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

45 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\nstatute as it is. It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into a statute or to read down the words of a statute, which the Legislature in its wisdom has or has not deliberately incorporated.\nTherefore it is not possible to appreciate the argument of the Ld.Sr.Counsel

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

Section 260A of the Act before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which was on 22.03.2016.” 5. The Ld.AR has filed a fresh affidavit for condonation of delay on 18/11/2018 wherein he has explained the above situation that caused the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. He also prayed for the same to be condoned

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

SHRI MUNIYAPPA NARASHIMAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 11. As far as the merits of the appeal of the assessee is concerned, the assessee claimed deduction under section 10(37) of the Act. Section 10(37) of the Act provides for exemption when there is compulsory acquisition of agricultural land which is located in an urban area. One of the conditions

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

condone the delay of 4 days in filing the C.O. and admit the C.O. for adjudication. 7.0 The Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C.O. are taken up together for disposal. 7.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue and the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative contended

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

condoned.\n12.\nSince the learned CIT(A)NFAC has not decided the issue on merits\nand dismissed the appeal only for delay in filing appeal. On going through\nthe Order of the AO and paper books filed by the assessee we noted that in\nthis case no investigations are required in the facts of the case as observed\nfrom

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

45,376/-\nb) The addition made under the head undervaluation of stock u/s.145A\nof the Act – Rs.68,53,999/-\nc) Addition for the contravention of section 40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs.20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs.23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based