SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

additional income offered during the course of survey under any other head of income. Hence, no useful purpose would be served in restoring the issue to AO for examining the source of investment in construction of the house. Therefore, we are of the view that the PCIT is not justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction under section

BHAGYA MAHANTESH KHODANPUR ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhagya Mahantesh Khodanpur, Income Tax Officer, Indu Arcade, Vithoba Galli, Ward-2(1), Durgadbail, Vs. Hubballi. Hubballi-580020. Pan No : Apxpk0150P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Bhagya Mahantesh Khodanpur Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) (In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2015-16 On 28/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 29/12/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurugram U/S. 250 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2025 Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Addition Of Rs. 4,42,500/- Is Bad In Law & 2. Liable To Be Deleted.

addition of Rs. 4,42,492/- be deleted.” 3. Submissions of the Ld. AR: The Ld. AR filed a paper book containing 118 pages. The Ld AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had not allowed deduction of ‘interest income’ from ‘income from house property

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

addition as income from house property because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income

SRI. GIREESHSHASTRI SHANKARSHASTRI JEERE ,GAJENDRAGAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, The Principal Commissioner Of Prop : Fakeeresh Fuels, Income Tax (Central), Kustagi Road, Main Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Gajendragad – 582 114. Pan : Agupj 2460 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023

Property’, ‘Income from Business and Profession’ and ‘Income from Other Sources’. There was a survey conducted in the clinic of the assessee under section 133A of the Act on 16.11.2017. During the course of survey, certain books of accounts and documents were impounded. Statement of the assessee was also recorded. Thereafter, statement under section 131 of the Act was recorded

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

addition of the same interest on housing loan to the cost of acquisition u/s 48 for computing capital gains chargeable to income-tax, as the said increased cost of acquisition is deducted while computing capital gains chargeable to income-tax. The income is chargeable to tax u/s 4, which is a charging section. Scope of Income is defined

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

house property. The\nAO concluded that the assessee had understated his rental income,\nestimated annual rental income at ₹6,00,000/-, allowed standard\ndeduction of ₹1,80,000/-, and made an addition

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property income\ntreated as positive income accordingly it is added and instead of\narriving at GTI of Rs. 166,30,917/- had arrived at Rs.\n169,49,437/- which is increased by Rs. 318,520/- which is twice\nthe figure of Loss of Rs. 159,260/- because of positive addition

CHANDRA SHEKHAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)

additions in respect of the income from house property, income from construction business, income from contract work and income from

G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

House Property, the\nAssessing Officer is required to allow full\ndeduction for the same amount collected\nand retained by Lido while determining\nthe Annual value of the property under\nsection 23 of the Income-tax Act.\nWithout Prejudice to Ground Nos.3 to 5,\nCAM charges could only be taxed as\nBusiness Income in the hands of the\nAppellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI vs. SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN KALBURGI, HUBBALLI

house property and income from other sources as\nwell as exempt income under Section 10(2A) of the Act. Being a partnership firm,\nassessee filed original written of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19\nelectronically on 26.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.35,33,480/- and the\nsame was processed under Section

M/S. S I MEDIA LLP, ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

addition of the same interest on housing loan to the cost of acquisition u/s 48 for computing capital gains chargeable to income-tax, as the said increased cost of acquisition is deducted while computing capital gains chargeable to income-tax. The income is chargeable to tax u/s 4, which is a charging section. Scope of Income is defined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

house property, and the assessee has already declared such income and no separate addition is required. 8. The learned D.R., Shri

PADMANABAN SUKHUMARAN ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee towards the interest claimed u/s

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernable from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 3 of 7 6. The appellant craves leave

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

House, First Cross Central Circle-1 Vs. N.G. Road, Attavar Mangaluru Mangaluru 575 001 Karnataka PAN NO : AAGCM8310E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are for the assessment years

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. The AO concluded that the assessee had understated his rental income, estimated annual rental income at ₹6,00,000/-, allowed standard deduction of ₹1,80,000/-, and made an addition

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. The AO concluded that the assessee had understated his rental income, estimated annual rental income at ₹6,00,000/-, allowed standard deduction of ₹1,80,000/-, and made an addition

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. The AO concluded that the assessee had understated his rental income, estimated annual rental income at ₹6,00,000/-, allowed standard deduction of ₹1,80,000/-, and made an addition

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. The AO concluded that the assessee had understated his rental income, estimated annual rental income at ₹6,00,000/-, allowed standard deduction of ₹1,80,000/-, and made an addition