SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

disallowance of interest claimed on repayment of housing loan. 8.2 In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee made a claim for deduction of Rs.1,00,000 under section 80C

M/S. ALLSTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowance of deduction under section 10AA of the Act for interest income earned by the Appellant. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case by - passing the impugned Order without following the judicial Precedence on this matter. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income

MR.MOHD RAFIQ,GULBARGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, GULBARGA

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Mohd. Rafiq, Income Tax Officer, Pro: Karnataka Transport Co. Ward - 2 & Acc Contractor, Near Irani Vs. Gulbarga. Building, Accc Main Road, At/Post Wadi, Tq. Chittapur, Dist. Gulbarga – 585 225. Pan : Adspr 0153 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2020 O R D E R

section 244A is taxable in the present year. Hence, this ground is also rejected. 10. As per ground 13, the dispute is regarding disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction 80C

SRI VEMI REDDY YASHODAR REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Vemi Reddy Yashodar Reddy, Flat No.411, Indus Innova Apartments, Behind Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aagpy3889B. Vs.

80C - Rs.1,00,000/- (ii) Disallowance of interest on housing Loan repayment u/s 24(6) - Rs.1,50,000/- (iii) Addition on account of difference in Gross receipts as per 26AS - Rs.11,98,062/- (iv) Unexplained cash deposits - Rs.14,40,130/- (v) Unexplained credit card payments - Rs.4,18,200/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 15/3/2013 for asst. year

SRI. SANJAY RAMPRAKASH SAXENA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Sanjay Ramprakash Saxena, Dcit, G1, Smr Devmuk Cpc, Sy. No.97/104, 9Th Main, Vs. Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Vijaya Bank Layout, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aozps 7209 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bharath Shetty, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023

80C, 80CC, 80CCD and Rs. 16,429/- u/s 80D, the net taxable income was shown as Rs.15,06,451/-. During the course of processing of return under section 143(1)(a) of the Act wherein disallowances

ARIBA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section include: 1. Mathematical Errors – Correction of any arithmetical or clerical errors in the return. 2. Incorrect Claims – Disallowance of incorrect claims that are apparent from the information provided in the return. 3. Disallowance of Losses – If carried-forward losses or deductions are claimed without filing the required supporting documents or returns in previous years. 4. Deduction Disallowance

SRI A C JAGADESH ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), MYSORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80C of the Act. The ld CIT(A) confirmed all the additions and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 4. We shall first take up the issue relating to unexplained cash deposits of Rs.47.73 lakhs made into the savings bank account of the assessee. At the time of hearing, the assessee

K.V. SUBRAMANYAM vs. ITO,

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri K.V.Subramaniam, No.15, Sai Smaran Apartments, 17Th Cross, 35 A Main, Jp Nagar Vi Phase, Bangalore-560078. … Appellant Pa No.Aqgps 0686 J Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 15(2) Bangalore. … Respondent

disallowance of payment of principal under section 80C(5)(iii) a & b house property loss when evidence is statement of housing

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 108. Now, the assessee contends that in light

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

disallowed the deduction\nu/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in\nfavour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the\nassessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is\ncovered.\n107. Now, the assessee contends that in light

LUV JIT JALAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18 Luv Jit Jalan No.28 & 29, Ground Floor Arihant Plaza, Kamaraj Road Ito Vs. Bangalore 560 042 Ward-1(2)(3) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No.Ailpj5661P Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth G.S., A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue.

disallowing a sum of Rs. 1,25,889/-being deductions claimed under section 80C of the Act under the facts

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NSL SUGARS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

80C to 80U shall be allowed from the gross total income of the assessee. Hence, Chapter VIA deductions are allowed only after set off of losses including inter unit losses. Further as per the provisions of section 72 of the IT Act, the brought forward losses have to be adjusted against the gross total income of the assessee before arriving

M/S NSL SUGARS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

80C to 80U shall be allowed from the gross total income of the assessee. Hence, Chapter VIA deductions are allowed only after set off of losses including inter unit losses. Further as per the provisions of section 72 of the IT Act, the brought forward losses have to be adjusted against the gross total income of the assessee before arriving

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

80C of the Act. Thereafter, the AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act, after noticing that the assessee’s income liable to tax had escaped assessment as the assessee had not declared income on sale of sites, on the aforesaid land at Mathod Village, Shivamogga, during the year under consideration and issued notice under section

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

80C of the Act. Thereafter, the AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act, after noticing that the assessee’s income liable to tax had escaped assessment as the assessee had not declared income on sale of sites, on the aforesaid land at Mathod Village, Shivamogga, during the year under consideration and issued notice under section

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

80C of the Act. Thereafter, the AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act, after noticing that the assessee’s income liable to tax had escaped assessment as the assessee had not declared income on sale of sites, on the aforesaid land at Mathod Village, Shivamogga, during the year under consideration and issued notice under section

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

80C of the Act. Thereafter, the AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act, after noticing that the assessee’s income liable to tax had escaped assessment as the assessee had not declared income on sale of sites, on the aforesaid land at Mathod Village, Shivamogga, during the year under consideration and issued notice under section

KEMPAPURA SRINIVASAREDDY UDAY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeykempapura Srinivasareddy Uday Dcit, Central Circle-2(2) Bengaluru 328, B Block Aces Layout Kundalahalli Vs. Bangalore 560037 Pan – Actpu3804H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Satish M., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

section 80C of the Act to the extent of Rs. 150,000/-; 8. Based on the above, the Learned AO has erred in law and in fact in raising demand by levying interest u.s 234A/234B of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual deriving income under the head ‘income from house