M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

5A: The impugned assessment order under\nSection 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 is bad and invalid\nas the same is barred by limitation under Section\n153B(1).\n\nGound 5B: The impugned assessment order under\nSection 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 is bad and non-est\n\nPage 31 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\nas the Learned AO has obtained

SHANTHA ALIAS SHANTHAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

section 45(5A) of the Act, and the assessee had already\ndisclosed the capital gains in accordance with the prevailing legal\nframework.\n34.18 Therefore, in our considered view, the additions made by the\nAssessing Officer on account of estimated capital gains based on the\ncost of construction of flats rather than actual sale are unjustified. The\nAO failed to appreciate

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

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

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

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

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. KEDAR AJIT KENY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

disallowed on the grounds that filing of form 67 within due date is a pre-condition for claiming foreign tax credit. This assumption is not in line with the decision of this Honourable tribunal in the case of Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna, ITA No. 454/Bang12021 vide its order dated 17-Nov-2021. Sri Kedar Ajit Keny, Bangalore Page