SRI JOSEPH K.ZACHARIAH ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.879/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15

condonation of delay in making the investment in the new residential house which was a pre-condition for the claim of u/s. 54. IT(IT)A No.879/Bang/2019 Sri Joseph K Zachariah, Bangalore Page 3 of 9 4. Deposited a sum of Rs.3.30 crores on 15.6.2015 in the Capital Gains account when the refund claim for 2014-15 was received

SHRI. G B SHIVARAJAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

condone the delay of 4 days in filing this appeal and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- “(1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), 12 Bangalore passed under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

delay in construction was attributable to assessee but was beyond the control of assessee since the construction was carried out by the builder. 16. Assessee in the synopsis filed before this Tribunal gave details of date wise payments, made to the builder for acquisition of property as under: Payments made prior to sale of original asset a) Date Amount

SMT. JAYA NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10

condoning the delay for filing the appeal, which was due to reasonable cause of wrong professional advise and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 5 4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 54F

SHRI. M.NANDA KUMAR, L/R SMT. JAYASHREE R,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

delay in filing the present appeals in case of both the assessees stands condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessees Shri M. Nanda Kumar and Shri M. Narendra Kumar were running a gym and filed his return of income through e-filing. For the year under consideration both the assessees had filed their returns

SHRI. M.NARENDRA KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

delay in filing the present appeals in case of both the assessees stands condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessees Shri M. Nanda Kumar and Shri M. Narendra Kumar were running a gym and filed his return of income through e-filing. For the year under consideration both the assessees had filed their returns

KRISHNA REDDY PRAVEEN KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised various grounds, but the crux of the grounds is with regard to the denial of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act. 5. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer denied exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act on the ground that no documentary evidence

LATE SMT. PREMA KUMARI REPRESENTED BY SON & L/H PRAVEEN KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised various grounds, but the crux of the grounds is with regard to the denial of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act. 5. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer denied exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act on the ground that no documentary evidence

VENKATESH SRINIVAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharysri Venkatesh Srinivas No.75, 2Nd Floor, 8Th Cross Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027 ………. Appellant [Pan: Abcpv8163C]

delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 7. We note that in the present case the Assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer had restricted Assessee’s claim for deduction of INR.3,50,58,569/- under Section 54F

SMT. MALATHI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Malathi, The Income-Tax No. 13, 4Th Main Road, Officer, Hebbal, Vs. Ward – 6 [3] [1], Bangalore – 560 024. Bangalore. Pan: Ahlpm6037D Appellant Respondent

54F of the Act to the appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 10. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver as per the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karanvir Singh 349 ITR 692, the Appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest

SMT B SUMATHY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2005-06 Smt. B. Sumathy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #T-401, Poorva Park, Ward – 1(2), Now Jeevana Halli Main Road, Ito, Ward – 1[2][2], Cox Town, Bangalore-560 005. Bangalore. Pan : Aseps 7079 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2019

condone the delay of 19 days by the assessee Page 4 of 11 in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly admit the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 for consideration and adjudication. O R D E R 3. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under:- 3.1 The assessee filed

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 7. As far as merits of the appeal are concerned, the factual details that emerges from the record are that the Assessee and his deceased wife were co-owners of the property. By a sale deed dated 28.11.2012, they sold the property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. The Share

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 7. As far as merits of the appeal are concerned, the factual details that emerges from the record are that the Assessee and his deceased wife were co-owners of the property. By a sale deed dated 28.11.2012, they sold the property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. The Share

MR.ZAMIR MIRZA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazshri Zamir Mirza, Flat No.4A, Iv Floor, Mayfair Apartments No.31, Berlie Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Acapm2850L. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1(1), Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.Y Ningoji Rao, C.A Respondent By : Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -10-2017 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz:

delay, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for condonation of 57 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and do so. Consequently, this appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant to this appeal are as under:- 3.1 The assessee had sold a property No:1/13, Albert Street

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.2739/Bang/2018 and the delay of 156 days in filing the appeals in ITA No.2740/Bang/2018 and ITA No.2741/Bang/2018; and consequently admit these appeals for consideration and adjudication. It is accordingly ordered. O R D E R 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in each of these

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.2739/Bang/2018 and the delay of 156 days in filing the appeals in ITA No.2740/Bang/2018 and ITA No.2741/Bang/2018; and consequently admit these appeals for consideration and adjudication. It is accordingly ordered. O R D E R 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in each of these

SRI MANCHACHARI (HUF) ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.2739/Bang/2018 and the delay of 156 days in filing the appeals in ITA No.2740/Bang/2018 and ITA No.2741/Bang/2018; and consequently admit these appeals for consideration and adjudication. It is accordingly ordered. O R D E R 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in each of these

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