DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI vs. SHRI. SRIPAL DEVICHAND JAIN, KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and CO by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

condone the delay in filing the CO by the assessee. 6. The sole and substantive issue emerging out of appeal and the CO is estimation of sales of the assessee and addition u/s. 69A in the light of cash seized of Rs.1.48 crores. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and is a trader

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(2) , BANGALORE vs. SHRI. INDRAJEET GHORPADE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

condone the delay of 51 days in filing the present appeal by the revenue. 4. Coming to the merit of the case, the only issue that is alleged by the revenue is in respect of the claim of deduction u/s. 54F allowed by the Ld.CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 4.70 Crores. Page 4 5. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. HARIS MUHAMMAD SAIT, BENGALURU

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld. AO is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

delay was nominal and was caused due to sufficient reasons, hence the same is condoned. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of contract execution, filed its return of income on 14.2.2017 at a total income of Rs.43,13,050. The case of the assessee was selected

ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Department and assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay of 31 days in filing this appeal by the assessee and proceed to dispose off both the same on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee, a trust, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 27.09.2018 declaring ‘Nil’ income. Assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under section

KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Department and assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay of 31 days in filing this appeal by the assessee and proceed to dispose off both the same on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee, a trust, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 27.09.2018 declaring ‘Nil’ income. Assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under section

MUDIGUNDAM SRINIVASAMURTHY MANJUNATH,MYSURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 1(1) AND TPS , MYSURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2015-16

delay of 211 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Hence, we proceed to decide the issue on merit of the case. . Page 3 of 7 5. The issue raised by the assessee though grounds Nos. 1 to 6 is interconnected and pertain to the confirmation of addition of Rs.2,27,21,046/- by the learned

VIJAYKIRAN EDUCATIONALTRUST,BANGALORE KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

condone the delay of 66 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. Now coming to the main ground of appeal, the facts of the issue are that as culled out from the assessment order of the AO are that the assessee e-filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2018- 19 on 19.10.2013 declaring total income

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. RAFFI BAIG,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee's and Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Year 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals). ITA No.1498 & 1540/Bang/2013 3 3. In the second round of proceedings before the CIT (Appeals) – II, Bangalore, the learned CIT (Appeals) disposed off the assessee's appeal vide order dt.5.8.2013 allowing the assessee partial relief. After hearing the assessee and considering the written submissions put forth by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

46A(3). 4.2 The Appeal of the revenue is devoid of any merit since the finding of fact recorded by the learned CIT(A) on various issues is not shown to the perverse and therefore, liable to be dismissed. 4.3 The appeal of the Appellant-Revenue is liable to be dismissed as none of the grounds taken by the appellant

SMT. TUPEL RAJA IYENGAR SHAKUNTHALA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Tupel Raja Iyengar Shakuntala, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer #25/4, Flat No.204, Ward-7(2)(4), Ff Mahaveer Aspen Apartments, Bangalore. 6Th Main Road, Yelachenahalli, K. P. Main Road, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan : Bfgps 4816 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 O R D E R

section 54 of the Act without filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 and finally submitted that the CIT(A) may decide the case on merits. 2.4 Thereafter, the CIT(A)-7, Bangalore, passed the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 dismissing the assessee’s appeal. In the impugned order, the CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing

BACHALLI NINGE GOWDA KEMPEGOWDA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

delay is condoned. 3. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited ₹10,00,000 in his bank account during the demonetisation period. The assessee explained that the source was from loan taken from friends, past savings, gift by his mother-in-law and chit fund. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and made an addition

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

SIDDARTHA GIRIJASHANKAR,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKMANGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, has erred in not admitting the additional evidence on the same grounds. 3. Having noted that the Appellant has responded only once during the assessment proceedings, the CIT(A) has erred in stating that the AO has considered all the facts on records and passed a speaking order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUNI REDDY SANTHOSH REDDY, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

section. It was also not disputed that the said plot purchased was not adjacent to the other 3 plots for which the appellant also claimed the deduction u/s. 54 / 54F of the Act and which had also been allowed to the appellant in this appellate order. Therefore, I am of the considered Shri Muni Reddy Santhosh Reddy, Bangalore Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ANTARIKSH SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

delay in filing the appeal is condoned as the same has occurred due to reasonable and sufficient cause. 3. The assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of internet services and infrastructure management services. During the relevant previous year, the assessee issued 19500 shares and received share premium of Rs. 6,98,05,000 from Manipal Education & Medical