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

Block, Brigade Gardenia, J P Nagar 7th Phase, The Assistant Bangalore – 560 078. Commissioner of Income Tax, Presently at Villa 126, Sobha Circle – 5(3)(1), Lifestyle Legacy, Bangalore. Vs. IVC Road, Devanahalli, Bangalore – 562 110. PAN: AMOPS7248G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date

SRI. G.S. SHIVANNA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-4, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

Block , Bangalore. The site was purchased on 08.11.2013 for a sum of Rs.3,32,10,000- copy of sale deed was Page 3 of 10 submitted. The Assessee claimed that LTCG on sale of site is exempt u/s 54F. Copy of the sanction plan of the house was enclosed. 4) Copy of some of the material purchase bills were

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

assessment proceedings, it is noticed that a sum of Rs.1,26,00,000/- has been claimed exemption u/s 54 of the 3 ITA No.293/Bang/2020. Dr.Sheela Puttabuddi. Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the assessee has not invested in a residential house property, but the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.1,26,00,000/- to one Shri B.Suresh for the purchase

M/S. DEEPALI COMPANY PRIVAE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax (Earlier Known As :Deepali Co. Officer, Pvt. Ltd.) Ward – 2 (1)(2), 35, Commercial Street, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Pan: Aaacd5120H Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 03.0.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2016-17 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Not Allowing Business Loss For The Year Of Rs. 114,66.766/- On The Ground That The Business Of The Assessee Company Is Closed & There Are No Receipts From Operation Of Business.

assessed the rental income under the head, ”Income from house property”, after allowing deduction u/s. 24 of the Act. The Ld.AO Page 3 of 7 did not allow setting off of the income under the head, “house property”, against the business loss claimed by the assessee. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

houses of the managing\ndirector and other directors. In such a case, when the\nmanaging director or any other persons were found to be not\nin possession of any incriminating material, the question of\nexamining them by the authorised officer during the course of\nsearch and recording any statement from them by invoking the\npowers under section

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

houses of the managing\ndirector and other directors. In such a case, when the\nmanaging director or any other persons were found to be not\nin possession of any incriminating material, the question of\nexamining them by the authorised officer during the course of\nsearch and recording any statement from them by invoking the\npowers under section

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

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

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments. Under Section I53A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess the 'total income' of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. This means that there can be only one assessment order

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments. Under Section I53A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess the 'total income' of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. This means that there can be only one assessment order

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

block ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 37 of 89 assessment roped in, only the undisclosed income, and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved; resulting in multiple assessments. U/s 153A of the Act, however, the AO has been given the power to assess or reassess the total income of the six assessment years in question in separate

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

block ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 37 of 89 assessment roped in, only the undisclosed income, and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved; resulting in multiple assessments. U/s 153A of the Act, however, the AO has been given the power to assess or reassess the total income of the six assessment years in question in separate

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

block ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 37 of 89 assessment roped in, only the undisclosed income, and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved; resulting in multiple assessments. U/s 153A of the Act, however, the AO has been given the power to assess or reassess the total income of the six assessment years in question in separate

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

block ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 37 of 89 assessment roped in, only the undisclosed income, and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved; resulting in multiple assessments. U/s 153A of the Act, however, the AO has been given the power to assess or reassess the total income of the six assessment years in question in separate

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

block ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 37 of 89 assessment roped in, only the undisclosed income, and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved; resulting in multiple assessments. U/s 153A of the Act, however, the AO has been given the power to assess or reassess the total income of the six assessment years in question in separate