M/S. JEANS KNIT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. The assessee while filing the return of income has claimed deduction of Rs.94/- u/s 80JJAA of the Act. During the course of asst. proceedings, the assessee revised the claim u/s 80JJAA of the Act to Rs.7,99,50,456/-stating that in the return of income the deduction was inadvertently claimed

M/S. SILICON ESTATES,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Silicon Estates, The Deputy # 14, 6Th Floor, Commissioner Of Geneva House, Income Tax, Cunningham Road, Central Circle Bengaluru – 560 001. 1(4), Vs. Pan: Abefs6150N Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2023 Order Per Madhumita Roythe Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2020 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 1(4), Bangalore U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Y. 2013-14 Whereby & Whereunder The Rejection Of The Claim U/S. 80Ib(10) Of Rs.4,03,40,492/- For A.Y. 2013-14 Has Been Confirmed.

801B(10)? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is involved in the business of building and developing housing projects. A search under Section Page 15 of 17 152 of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 04.02.2011. During the course of the search, various documents were seized

S N BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. S.N.Builders & Developers, No.4, 2Nd Floor, Elephant Rock Road, Above Kalayan Jewellers, Jayanagar 3Rd Block, Bengaluru-560 011. Pan: Abefs 8850 P … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bangalore-9, Bangalore, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

disallowance of provision for expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On the first disputed issue, the ld. AR submitted that the disputed issue is dealt by the Hon’ble Tribunal in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.487 & 654/Bang/2013 dated 11/4/2014, Page 9 & 10. We found the claim

M/S NAMDHARI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2001-02

801B be granted and d) interest levied be deleted.” Brief facts of the present appeal are as under: 2. At the outset, it is necessary to record the brief history of the present appeal which is as under: 1. Ld.AO passed the original assessment order under section 143(3) on 29/03/2004 making addition of Rs.3,84,13,288/- by denying

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

801B of the IT Act (iii) Project wise detailed profit and loss account of IT Act for all the years starting from AY 2010-11 to 2017-18 6. The AO observed that the assessee has just submitted the computation of profitability of individual projects u/s 80IB regarding the maintenance of separate accounts of the eligible projects. However

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

801B of the IT Act (iii) Project wise detailed profit and loss account of IT Act for all the years starting from AY 2010-11 to 2017-18 6. The AO observed that the assessee has just submitted the computation of profitability of individual projects u/s 80IB regarding the maintenance of separate accounts of the eligible projects. However

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of 6. the assessing officer in adding a sum of Rs. 83,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of 6. the assessing officer in adding a sum of Rs. 83,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of 6. the assessing officer in adding a sum of Rs. 83,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of 6. the assessing officer in adding a sum of Rs. 83,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of 6. the assessing officer in adding a sum of Rs. 83,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of 6. the assessing officer in adding a sum of Rs. 83,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant has not proved the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. On proper appreciation