MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowed by the AO on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return of income by making an application at the assessment stage without revising the return of income. However, the same is allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Being so, the Tribunal being the second appellate authority in this case

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

disallowance. Even before us, there is no iota of evidence in support of the claim of the assessee. Hence, on this count, there is no error in the order of CIT(Appeals). 29. The other contention of the ld. AR is that the sum of Rs.3,30,29,479 should have been excluded from the computation of long term capital

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

53A\nof the Transfer of property Act, the provisions of section 2(47)(v) are not\nattracted.\n\nITA No.1926/Bang/2024\n& 299/Bang/2025\nPage 11 of 20\n\n16.12 In light of the above discussion, and respectfully following the\ndecision of the coordinate bench in Sri Sai Lakshmi Industries Pvt. Ltd.\n(supra), we hold that no transfer had taken place

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of expenses was unjustified.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "2(47)(v)", "53A", "234A", "234B", "234C", "143(3)", "194C" ], "issues

SMT.VANI SHREE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

disallowance of exemption a sum of Rs. 1,99,07,549/- claimed by the appellant u/s 54F of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,99,07,549/- long term capital gains on the facts and circumstances

SMT.KONDAMMA ,BANGALORE ` vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Kondamma, No. 122/2, 6Th Main, The Income Tax Opp Srs Printer, Officer, Kammagondanhalli, Vs. Ward – 6 (2) (4), Jalahalli West, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 015. Pan: Atypk2334A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2019

disallowance made by the AO of the deduction of Rs.70,84,063/- claimed by the appellant u/s 54F on the grounds that the investment in the new asset was beyond the time limit permitted under the section. In the assessment proceedings, the AR has also conceded that the purchase of the new asset was beyond the time limit prescribed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUJEEB URRAHMAN, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance of deduction admissible u/s. 54 of the Act. Therefore the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,48,83,672/- was deleted by the CIT(Appeals). Against this, the revenue is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. DR submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. K. Ramachandra

SRI. K. RAJANNA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.928/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sri K. Rajanna, Hoovadigara Beedhi, Hosuru Bagilu, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Dist. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.9.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore Dt.24.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 2.4.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.13,43,590 From Business & Long Term Capital Gains (‘Ltcg’). The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act'). The Assessing Officer Observed That On Verification Of The Return Of Income, It Was Seen That The Assessee Was In Receipt Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.3,38,00,000 From Sale Of 12 Flats Received From The Developer Consequent To A Joint Development Agreement (‘Jda’)

Section 2(47)(v) of the Act rws 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Ground No.5 ; in respect of disallowance

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

53A of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act and the construction of the apartment was for and on behalf of the Appellant for which the cost was incurred from time to time as per the scheme of payment provided in the agreement and accordingly the Appellant had rightly computed the Cost

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 48 towards cost of acquisition to the tune of Rs. 18,38,292/- being interest on housing loan, as the assessee has already availed deduction of interest under section 24(b) of the Act. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

SR. N PRATHAP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

53A of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply. The appellant denies himself liable to be levied to interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the 7. rate, period and method of calculation ot interest 7,28,300/- under the facts

SRI.AZMATH ULLA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance can be made when the recipients of the amount have already considered the same as part of their income offered to tax. He has further contented that though these certificates were not produced before the AO however, the assessee raised this issue before the CIT(A) and now filed these certificates in support of his claim. Hence

SRI DINESH DEVRAJ RANKA,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-8,, BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

disallowed by the AO and CIT(A) is that the assessee could not substantiate the claim in terms of commercial expediency to incur the expenditure and the nexus between the expenditure and the business. We therefore in the interest of justice remit the issue back to the CIT(A) to examine the issue afresh based on evidences that the assessee

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowance made invoking provisions of section 153A of the act unless justified on the basis of material seized during the course of search. PRAYER The appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly hold that, the order U/s.143(3) r.w.s 53A

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowance made invoking provisions of section 153A of the act unless justified on the basis of material seized during the course of search. PRAYER The appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly hold that, the order U/s.143(3) r.w.s 53A

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.7,91,031/-. 22. In the assessment order for the A.Y. 2010-11, the AO has concluded that the sum of Rs.100 crores received by way of Non refundable deposit is nothing but consideration for agreeing to take a lesser share in the built up area and that the same is income in the hands

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.7,91,031/-. 22. In the assessment order for the A.Y. 2010-11, the AO has concluded that the sum of Rs.100 crores received by way of Non refundable deposit is nothing but consideration for agreeing to take a lesser share in the built up area and that the same is income in the hands

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.7,91,031/-. 22. In the assessment order for the A.Y. 2010-11, the AO has concluded that the sum of Rs.100 crores received by way of Non refundable deposit is nothing but consideration for agreeing to take a lesser share in the built up area and that the same is income in the hands