VINOD PRASAD INJETI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, we reverse the orders of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.12.2017 passed by ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Bangalore [ld. AO] was dismissed. Page 2 of 10 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") has erred in law and fact by not appreciating that the Learned Assessing Officer

SURYA ADIGA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1) DEPARTMENT LOCATION: *BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

u/s 154 of the Act to rectify any errors occurred in the orders. Therefore, the assessee diligently filed the rectification petition and sought for rectifying the error occurred in the order, which was negatived by the ld. AO on a later date. Thus, the delay of 339 days has been occurred. 4.1 At this stage, it is also

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

rectification u/s 154. The Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding the additions as not ' mistake apparent on record' and not covered u/s 154, dismissing the Appeal. 3. The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal by upholding the order u/s 154 denying the HRA Exemption claimed u/s

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property and business income (renumeration and share of profit from partnership firms). For the AY 2021-22, the assessee filed his return of income on 15/03/2022 by declaring total income of Rs.5,07,94,880/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 28/03/2022. Subsequently, the rectification order u/s. 154

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property and business income (renumeration and share of profit from partnership firms). For the AY 2021-22, the assessee filed his return of income on 15/03/2022 by declaring total income of Rs.5,07,94,880/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 28/03/2022. Subsequently, the rectification order u/s. 154

BHAGIRATH CONSTRUCATION CO.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

house property, income from business or profession and income from other sources. Thereafter, the return of the assessee firm was processed and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 25.8.2022 by raising a demand of Rs.1,35,710/- giving credit for TDS amounting to Rs.77,36,193/- as against Rs.78,44,038/- as claimed by the assessee

M/S NETRA SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC) (ASSESSSS IS ASSESSED TO TAX WITH ACIT CIRCLE-5(1)(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

house property was set off against income from other sources to arrive at the net loss of Rs.1,37,90,289 and this was carried forward. 3. The ACIT, CPC issued intimation u/s. 143(1) on 1.6.2013 wherein the losses of current year to be carried forward was determined at Rs.1,08,668 as against loss of Rs.1

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

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

house during the assessment year 2013-14 and hence not entitled for claim u/s. 54F. The AO passed an assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 21.03.2018 disallowing the claim u/s. 54F and recomputed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,50,88,284. Aggrieved Page 4 of 23 the assessee filed an appeal before

SRI. SANDEEP PATWARI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

house property, capital gains, interest and dividend. The total income disclosed in the return of 2 ITA No.223/Bang/2023. Sri.Sandeep Patwari. income was a sum of Rs.1,17,07,500. According to the assessee, the assessee had offered to tax in India, salary earned abroad amounting to Rs.63,23,362 and paid taxes on the same (Rs.21,47,702). The assessee

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

rectification u/s 154 of the Act dated 15.10.2019 as follows: Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page 12 of 25 Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page 13 of 25 5.2 Later, there was an enquiry conducted in the case of Manipal Academy of Higher Education and notice u/s 133(6) of the Act has been issued and it was found that

RAM AVADHANULU JONNAVITHULA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

154 of the IT Act, 1961, I made the following attempts at rectification: 1. Online I have Ned rectification return as on 04-Apr-2019, rejected by CPC with no communication as to the reasons for rejections. i found out about the rejection in Sep-2023 on receipt of communication to pay the demand. 2. Aggrieved, one more rectification return

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 115BBDA Rs. 20,14,51,567/- D. Income taxable at special rate (A+B+C) Rs. 36,78,25,373 4.1 On the other hand, the other incomes being taxable at normal slab rate included the following income: A. Income from House property Rs. 4,19,043/- B. Business Income Rs. 4,50,000/- C. Short term capital gain

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 115BBDA\nRs. 20,14,51,567/-\nD. Income taxable at special rate (A+B+C)\nRs. 36,78,25,373\n4.1 On the other hand, the other incomes being taxable at normal\nslab rate included the following income:\nA. Income from House property\nRs. 4,19,043/-\nB. Business Income\nRs. 4,50,000/-\nC. Short term capital gain

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to \n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated \n20.02.2018.). The details are as under: \n\nGold\n\nParticulars \n\nFound \nin \ncourse \nof \nsearch\n\nStatement of \nassets filed \nbefore Lok \nAyukta \n(gms)\n\nDifference \n(gms)\n\nCBDT rate \nper gm \n(after \nadjustments)\n\nDifference \nin Rs. \n\nAppellant\n\n632.50

SUTHAKAR SELVARAJ ,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), MYSURU

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 24.2.2020 by the ITO, Ward 1(2), Mysuru [ld. AO] was partly allowed. Page 2 of 7 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal. 3. This appeal is late by 55 days and therefore the assessee filed an application for condonation

M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

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

housing project…. 11. The above documents are vital evidences to determine the chargeability of the income of the assessee. At the cost of repetition it may be stated here that these documents were not available before the Assessing Officer at the time of concluding proceedings u/s 143(3).” 5.6 At this point, it is necessary to elaborate on the facts

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S IND- SING DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

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

housing project…. 11. The above documents are vital evidences to determine the chargeability of the income of the assessee. At the cost of repetition it may be stated here that these documents were not available before the Assessing Officer at the time of concluding proceedings u/s 143(3).” 5.6 At this point, it is necessary to elaborate on the facts