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

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 P V KRISHNAPPA (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2011-12 Shri P. V. Krishnappa [Huf], Vs. Income Tax Oficer, Behind Maramma Temple, Ward – 6(3)(2), B. B. Raod, Amruthahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru - 560 092. Pan : Aqqpp 9234 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. :

section 54F of the Act and thereby raising demand of Rs.1,08,29,512/-. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 31.03.2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A)-6, Bengaluru, on 09.05.2016; which was filed belatedly by 375 days. After hearing the assessee in the matter, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee

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. 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

1. The order of the CIT (A) in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, and weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellant denies herself liable to be assessed at Rs. 40,64,650/- against the declared total income of Rs.5,74,371/- on the facts and circumstances

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

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

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

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

condone the delay of two days in filing the appeal. 4. The assessee is an individual. He sold agricultural lands belonging to him in Sy.No.165/17, Doraisanipalaya, Bilekahalli Village, Begur Hobli for a consideration of Rs.6,95,00,000 under an agreement dated 06.09.2007 whereby possession of the property was also delivered to the purchaser

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

SHRI RAJEEV NATARAJ LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI P NATARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be decided on the grounds raised by assessee. 6. The Ld.AR raised legal issue by challenging the validity of the re-opening under section 148 of the Act, by way of following Additional grounds: “ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.1 The learned AO ought to have appreciated that there was no material indicating escapement

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

T. SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

1 to 3 is regarding an addition of Rs.40,50,000/- made under long term capital gain denying the claim u/s 54 of the IT Act, 1961 and also not considering the cost of acquisition of Rs.23.80 lakhs claimed by the assessee. 2. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 333 days. Pleading of the assessee

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]

1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, (“CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Act, insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of Assessment Year 2020-2021 evidence, natural justice and probabilities on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case. 2. The CIT(A) erred