DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

50C is not applicable in the case of purchaser\nand this provision being a deeming provision will apply for determining the full\nvalue of consideration as a result of transfer of capital assets for the purposes\nof computation of capital gains u/s.48 of the Act. We further find that there is\nno evidence on record to show that the consideration

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowing expenditure. The quantification of expenditure was done by adding to the cost price, profit margin which Assessees engaged in similar business would earn and reducing therefrom the actual sale value realised by the Assessee. The question is whether the course of action adopted by the AO was permissible under the Act. 51. The relevant statutory provisions

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

50C of the Act, where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed 110% of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48 of the Act, be deemed

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

50C of the Act, where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed 110% of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48 of the Act, be deemed

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

disallowing\nexpenditure. The quantification of expenditure was done by adding to the cost\nprice, profit margin which Assessees engaged in similar business would earn\nand reducing therefrom the actual sale value realised by the Assessee. The\nquestion is whether the course of action adopted by the AO was permissible\nunder the Act.\n51. The relevant statutory provisions

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

disallowing\nexpenditure. The quantification of expenditure was done by adding to the cost\nprice, profit margin which Assessees engaged in similar business would earn\nand reducing therefrom the actual sale value realised by the Assessee. The\nquestion is whether the course of action adopted by the AO was permissible\nunder the Act.\n51. The relevant statutory provisions

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

disallowing\nexpenditure. The quantification of expenditure was done by adding to the cost\nprice, profit margin which Assessees engaged in similar business would earn\nand reducing therefrom the actual sale value realised by the Assessee. The\nquestion is whether the course of action adopted by the AO was permissible\nunder the Act.\n51. The relevant statutory provisions

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

disallowing\nexpenditure. The quantification of expenditure was done by adding to the cost\nprice, profit margin which Assessees engaged in similar business would earn\nand reducing therefrom the actual sale value realised by the Assessee. The\nquestion is whether the course of action adopted by the AO was permissible\nunder the Act.\n\n51. The relevant statutory provisions

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MADIKERI vs. GOVINDAPPA JAYARAM DODDAIAH , MADAPURA, KODAGU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseen Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961 3) The Ld AO failed to appreciate the fact that the area as per Occupancy Certificate is the total area received and the same is offered to tax and upon which there is no extra area given to the appellant. The same is being supported by the statement given by the developer about

GOVINDAPPA JAYARAM DODDIAH (HUF),KODAGU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseen Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961 3) The Ld AO failed to appreciate the fact that the area as per Occupancy Certificate is the total area received and the same is offered to tax and upon which there is no extra area given to the appellant. The same is being supported by the statement given by the developer about

MUNIRAJU VIJAYALAKSHMI ,CHIKKABALLAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPURA

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in so\nfar the same is against the appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence,\nprobabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.\n2. The learned CIT (A), NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeal of\nthe Appellant without affording effective opportunity of representation to the\nappellant

PRITHVIRAJ LEKKAD MALLIKARJUN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.11,52,67,650/- by holding that the appellant has not furnished any details or evidence for cost of acquisition under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the cost of acquisition of the property acquired prior to 01.04.2001 has to be adopted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowing expenditure. The quantification of expenditure was done by adding to the cost price, profit margin which Assessees engaged in similar business would earn and reducing therefrom the actual sale value realised by the Assessee. The question is whether the course of action adopted by the AO was permissible under the Act. 51. The relevant statutory provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowing expenditure. The quantification of expenditure was done by adding to the cost price, profit margin which Assessees engaged in similar business would earn and reducing therefrom the actual sale value realised by the Assessee. The question is whether the course of action adopted by the AO was permissible under the Act. 51. The relevant statutory provisions