M/S. SSJV PROJECTS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). Since the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was dismissed for delay in filing the appeal and the CIT(A) has not dealt on the merits, therefore, we restore this dispute issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 99,88,323/- as against the actual value assessed at Rs. 2,46,91,677/-. In view of these facts, the deemed sale consideration of the properties at Rs. 27,89,88,000/- has escaped assessment. It is seen from the ITR that the assessee has declared only income under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. KUMARI AHANA GARADI , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran,Am

condone the delay of 28 days in filing this appeal and proceeded to dispose of the same on merit. 3. The Revenue has raised the solitary effective ground, which reads as follow:- “2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and in fact by adjudicating the valuation of the immovable property for the purpose of Section 50C

KUMARI AHANA GARADI ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran,Am

condone the delay of 28 days in filing this appeal and proceeded to dispose of the same on merit. 3. The Revenue has raised the solitary effective ground, which reads as follow:- “2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and in fact by adjudicating the valuation of the immovable property for the purpose of Section 50C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

delay of 213 days is condoned. CO No.2/Bang/2022 8. The assessee in the CO has raised grounds on both legal issues and on merits. Therefore, we will first adjudicate the CO of the assessee. The AO on perusal of the JDA entered into between the assessee and the developer had concluded that the year under consideration is a year

KENCHEGOWDA BOMMALINGEGOWDA,MATHIKERE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

50C of Income Tax Act. 1961, due to the reason that the assessee had entered into an oral agreement during the year 2013-14 to sell the property and the same was registered in the year 2016-17. The absolute sale deed contains a clause stating that the seller had made an oral agreement to sell the property

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

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

section 50C of the Act as the income from long term capital gains. As against the said proceedings, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the land in dispute is owned by Shri Satyanarayan P. Raibagi, Hubli and therefore the assessee is not liable to pay any tax under the capital gains. The assessee also

PRITHVIRAJ LEKKAD MALLIKARJUN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

sections 234A, 234B & 234C is not leviable and ought to have been waived on the facts of the case. 6. The Appellant craves leave of your Honour to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 7. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing