K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone this short delay of 34 days and admit the appeals for adjudication. 2. The main grounds for all the assessment years from 2007-08 2012-13 are as follows:- 2.1 Main grounds for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.307/Bang/2020:- “1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in partially confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

SMT. MALALI VENUGOPALA UMADEVI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD- 2(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari“Smc” Assessment Year: 2008-09

short delay of 5 days in filing this appeal, which is condoned. The crux of the above grounds are that on sale of house property, whether it resulted in long term capital gain

JAYASHREE S,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Jayashree S, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.147, 30Th Cross, Income Tax (Cpc), Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Income Tax Office, Bangalore-560 070. Ward – 7(2)(4), Pan : Aakpj 2584 J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Karuppusamy S. R., Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boazthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Of Cit(A)-7, Bangalore, Dated 24.04.2019 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Impugned Intimation Being Bad In Law Without Jurisdiction & Not In Accordance With Any Of The Provision Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case & Without Prejudice, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay For Filing Of Appeal & Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Holding That The Delay Is Nothing But Negligence & Inaction Of The Appellant & There Exists No Sufficient Or Good Reason For Condoning The Delay. On Proper Appreciation Of Facts & The Law Applicable, The Appellant Was Page 2 Of 6

delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) be condoned, the addition of Short Term Capital Gain be deleted

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

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 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

short] on the following reasons: 1. The total sum Rs.7,59,92,601/- has been invested in the new asset i.e. residential house under construction within the due date u/s. 139(1) i.e. 31.7.2014 as opposed to the Capital Gains of Rs.10,80,96,500/- which actually had to be invested. 2. The balance Capital Gain

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

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section