RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

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

disallowance of 25% of development expenses, he sustained the addition. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 6. With regard to treating the date of transfer of the immovable property as on the date of entering into the JDA on 7.5.2009, and treating it as a transfer and thereafter concluding the arising of long term capital gain

M/S. MICRO LABS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed under Section 35 of the Act. The AO is precluded from examining the correctness or otherwise of the certificate issued by the prescribed authority on the grounds that it is either being contrary to facts or contrary to the express provisions of the Act. When the taxpayer files the report issued by the prescribed authority under Section

V.S. CHANDRA SHEKAR vs. ACIT,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2010-11

5A). Thus, Section 50C applies only in case of a transferor of land which in the instant case is M/S Namaste Exports and not the assessee who was only a consenting party and not a transferor / co-owner of the property. Undoubtedly, the assessee had certain rights under the agreement, however, from the clear plain and unambiguous language employed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.EAGLETON PROPERTY HOLDINGS CIRCLE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eagleton Property Holdings, Income Tax #4, Model House Street, Circle -7(2)(1), Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 004. Pan : Aabfe 9867 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Arun Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 7.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 7.1.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

disallowance of the claims of the assessee under Section 80IB(10). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 14.11.2012 allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. On further appeal by the revenue the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 21.03.2014 upheld the order

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance made u/s 80P of the Act is bad in law. M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari Ni, Raichur Page 3 of 13 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 363 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The CIT(A) order has been served to the assessee on 30.10.2021. As per section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, SHIVAMOGGA vs. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI K T, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Shivamogga. ….Appellant Pan Vs. Smt. Jayalakshmi K T, Sri Krishna Transport, Savarkar Nagar, Shivamogga. ……Respondent.

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the judicial decision relied on by the CIT(Appeals) are challenged by the revenue and filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Contra, the learned Authorized Representative supported the orders of CIT(Appeals). 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The sole matrix

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, (14 of 1874) or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has, by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn form the re-extended to such area or any part thereof the provisions of such Act or Regulations shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such area

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, (14 of 1874) or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has, by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn form the re-extended to such area or any part thereof the provisions of such Act or Regulations shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such area

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, (14 of 1874) or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has, by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn form the re-extended to such area or any part thereof the provisions of such Act or Regulations shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such area

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, (14 of 1874) or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has, by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn form the re-extended to such area or any part thereof the provisions of such Act or Regulations shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such area

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, (14 of 1874) or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has, by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn form the re-extended to such area or any part thereof the provisions of such Act or Regulations shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such area

SMT NAGAMANI K T,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

disallowance of Rs.48,672 under Section 40A(3) of the Act. While passing the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issue of notice under Section 274 rws 271 of the Act dt.18.12.2009. 2.2 From the details on record, it transpires that in the course of survey proceedings