M/S. ODION BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD - 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 194LA and determined total demand payable of Rs.91,487. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) before going into merits of the case found that there is a delay of 215 days in filing the appeal, since the explanations of the assessee are not satisfactory CIT (Appeals

SRI. R. DHANRAJ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2004-05

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as reliance placed by Appellant in the case of Devdas Rama V CIT reported in 88 CCH 019 Mumbai High Court which was squarely applicable to facts of the Appellant case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have

AREHALLI RUDRAPPA VISHWANATHA,AREHALLY,TEMPLE,BELUR vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HASSAN

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

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

80C, was below the taxable limit for the relevant assessment year. 6. The learned CIT Appeals has further erred in not appreciating that part of the cash deposits represented agricultural income from the appellant's 4 acres of agricultural land, which is exempt under section 10(1) of the Act. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax has erred

BACHIRA UTHAIAH POOVAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2018-19

80C and 80D of the Act for ₹ 1,25,984/- declared net taxable income of ₹ 18,93,510/- only. The assessee computed gross tax liability (tax + cess) on the declared income at ₹ 3,91,970/- against which claimed relief under section 90 of the Act, amounting to ₹ 2,34,743/- on account of taxes paid in foreign country namely “Norway

SRI. SANJAY RAMPRAKASH SAXENA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Sanjay Ramprakash Saxena, Dcit, G1, Smr Devmuk Cpc, Sy. No.97/104, 9Th Main, Vs. Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Vijaya Bank Layout, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aozps 7209 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bharath Shetty, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023

80C, 80CC, 80CCD and Rs. 16,429/- u/s 80D, the net taxable income was shown as Rs.15,06,451/-. During the course of processing of return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act wherein disallowances were made which is as under: i. Value of perquisites under section 17(2) of the Act - Rs.12,335/- (twice considered) ii. HRA exemption

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

80C to 80U would be available to the assessee. Therefore section 80A provides the section in which deduction would be available. Section 80A does not determine the quantification of the said deduction. However, the Supreme Court was concerned with determining the quantification of deduction for the purpose of which section 80A is not relevant. Therefore, the appellant submits that

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

80C to 80U would be available\nto the assessee. Therefore section 80A provides the section in which deduction\nwould be available. Section 80A does not determine the quantification of the\nsaid deduction. However, the Supreme Court was concerned with determining\nthe quantification of deduction for the purpose of which section 80A is not\nrelevant. Therefore, the appellant submits that

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

80C to 80U would be available to the assessee. Therefore section 80A provides the section in which deduction would be available. Section 80A does not determine the quantification of the said deduction. However, the Supreme Court was concerned with determining the quantification of deduction for the purpose of which section 80A is not relevant. Therefore, the appellant submits that

ASWATHNARAYANAIAH RATHNAMMA RAAMESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

section 250 be quashed or in alternative the above grounds and relief prayed thereof be allowed.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income in ITR-2 on 25.3.2018 declaring gross total income of Rs.5,02,800 which constituted salary income of Rs.4,14,000, income from house property of Rs.84

SENTHIL KUMAR THANGAVELU,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan Kassessment Year : 2021-22

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee was employed with Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd., during the Assessment Year, declared income under the head salary, capital gains, dividend and interest. Assessee was resident in India and filed return of income on 27.01.2022 with a total income of Rs.2

M. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2007-08 Shri M. Sathyanarayana Setty, No. 105, 3Rd Main Road, I Cross, The Income Tax Vhbcs Layout, Officer, Vs. Mahalakshmipuram, Ward – 6 (2) (2), Bangalore – 560 086. Bangalore. Pan: Atlps1459B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Revenue By Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2019

80C of the Act, is eligible for deduction as claimed for and same is to be granted to the appellant. 2. The learned Assessing officer has erred in taxing the Long Term Capital Gain @ normal slab rate instead of @ 20% as prescribed u/s 112 of the Act. The action of Assessing officer being erroneous both on facts