SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

148, 149, 151 and 153 where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such

THE ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. The Archdiocesan The Deputy Board Of Education, Commissioner Of Archbishop’S House, No. 75 Income Tax Vs. Millers Road, Benson Town, (Exemptions), Bangalore – 560 046. Circle – 1, Pan: Aabat5296P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

disallowing exemption claimed under section 11 for the year under consideration. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, exemption under section 11 should be allowed as claimed in the return of income. 9.2 Assuming without admitting that the appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 11, the learned AO and CIT(A) have erred in Page

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

148 of the Act declaring income of Rs.44,60,860/- as declared in return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act which was not e- verified. In this regard, questionnaire under section 142(1) fo the Act dated 18.10.2021 was communicated to the assessee for compliance for the Assessment Year under consideration. Further a notice dated 22.02.2022 was issued

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

disallowance of interest was not added and loss claimed in the return was disallowedAccordingly, the AO completed the assessment on 24.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

disallowance of interest was not added and loss ITA Nos.1617 and 1618/Bang/2024 Page 7 of 45 claimed in the return was disallowedAccordingly, the AO completed the assessment on 24.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

148 of the Act by the ACIT Income tax (Exemptions), Circle 01, Bangalore after allegedly obtaining approval from the CIT(Exemptions), Circle -1, Bangalore. The learned Assessing officer held that the assessee had made investments in contravention to the provisions of section 11(5) of the Act and consequently disallowed

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

disallowance of interest at para NO. 9.2, 9.3 & 9.4 of his order but while assessing the income there is no addition made on the assessed income, hence, we will not adjudicate this ground No. 9 on this issue. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

disallowance of interest at para NO. 9.2, 9.3 & 9.4 of his order but while assessing the income there is no addition made on the assessed income, hence, we will not adjudicate this ground No. 9 on this issue. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148

VIVIDHODHESHA PRATHAMIKA GRAMINA KRUSHI SAHAKARA SANGHA NI GEJJALAGERE ,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, , MANDYA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowances made by the AO. The relevant finding of the learned CIT(A) is extracted as under: 5.2 As per provision of section 80AC of the Act, if the assessee makes his claim for deduction under section 80P in a return filed within time under sections 139(4), 142(1) or section 148

M/S. GITA REFRACTORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the second question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and as a result thereof the appeal fails and dismissed as such

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

section 115JB. The case was selected for scrutiny and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) after making addition on account of ESI & PF expenses of Rs.124,448/- and disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.34,44,337/- and Rs.2,24,952/- was made. The assessee filed appeal before

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

disallowance of interest aws not added Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment on 24.03.2022. ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 10 of 29 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

disallowance of interest aws not added Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment on 24.03.2022. ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 10 of 29 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

disallowance of interest aws not added Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment on 24.03.2022. ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 10 of 29 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section 148

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

disallowing a sum of Rs.8,94,000/- under section 69 of the income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the investment in ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 15 immovable properties was made out of the past savings of the appellant and therefore

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

disallowing a sum of Rs.8,94,000/- under section 69 of the income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the investment in ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 15 immovable properties was made out of the past savings of the appellant and therefore

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

disallowing a sum of Rs.8,94,000/- under section 69 of the income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the investment in ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 15 immovable properties was made out of the past savings of the appellant and therefore

MR.M RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

disallowing a sum of Rs.8,94,000/- under section 69 of the income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the investment in ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 15 immovable properties was made out of the past savings of the appellant and therefore

MR. M.RAMESH,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

disallowing a sum of Rs.8,94,000/- under section 69 of the income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the investment in ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 15 immovable properties was made out of the past savings of the appellant and therefore

MR.M.RAMESH ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

disallowing a sum of Rs.8,94,000/- under section 69 of the income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the investment in ITA Nos. 389 to 394/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 15 immovable properties was made out of the past savings of the appellant and therefore