SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is clearly un- sustainable in law. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore Page 3 of 33 (10) Without prejudice to any of the aforesaid grounds, it is noted that consideration accruing cannot be evaluated as the subject matter is not in existence and therefore cannot be ascertained as on the date

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

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

3) read with section 263 of the act dated the 29 December 2019 assessing the income of the appellant at ₹ 131,358,751 by making the several adjustment to the income from house property by bringing the annual value of that property to tax under the head income from house property. The DCIT V G Corp

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Business Other declared declared declared Property Sources 2012-13 3,48,933 3,12,000 5,35,221 11,96,154 10,96,150 9,00,000 2. The manual copy of the return of income filed is incorrect as the assessee was required to file e-return. The manual copy of the return filed is filed

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

3) of the Act\ndated 28.2.2021, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the\nld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\n\n5. With regard to the property at J.P. Nagar declared at\nRs.2,67,07,891/-, the assessee claimed that the property shown in\nthe site on which the building is constructed is a part of the self-\noccupied property only. Further

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.

3) of Sub-Section (10) of Section of 80-IB of the Act is to be accepted, then, in that event, Authorities under the Act cannot insist for a completion certificate to be issued by the Municipal Corporation, when, in fact the said certificate contemplated under the KMC Act and the Building Bye-laws is to be issued by registered

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

10, Mumbai (supra), has held as under: "It was the case of the revenue that clause (c) of section 23 (1) can only be invoked in those cases where the property was let out in earlier years or in the present year. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that the intention of letting out the property

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

10. Under the block assessment proceeding under Chapter XIV-B only the undisclosed income found during the search and seizure operation were required to be assessed and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved. The introduction of Section 153A of the Act provides a departure from this proceeding. Under Section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has been given

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

10. Under the block assessment proceeding under Chapter XIV-B only the undisclosed income found during the search and seizure operation were required to be assessed and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved. The introduction of Section 153A of the Act provides a departure from this proceeding. Under Section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has been given

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

10. Under the block assessment proceeding under Chapter XIV-B only the undisclosed income found during the search and seizure operation were required to be assessed and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved. The introduction of Section 153A of the Act provides a departure from this proceeding. Under Section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has been given

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

10. Aggrieved, the assessee has now filed appeal before the Tribunal . It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no double deduction as both the deductions operate on different field as interest on housing loan is allowed as deduction under section 24(b) , while interest paid on the housing loan is added to cost of acquisition

KANTILAL JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

House property and Income from other sources. 3.1 The Income from Other Sources (`IFOS) included interest income of Rs. 3,30,282/- and income of Kantilal Jain, Bangalore Page 4 of 20 Rs. 4,78,000/- out of LIC maturity proceeds. Total tax payable in the return of income amounted to Rs. 3,34,331/-, which was paid via advance

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

3) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961.\n1.2. First, we shall take up assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1266/Bang/2024 for\n assessment year 2012-13.\n2.\nITA Nos.1265 & 1266/Bang/2024\nA.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13\nKarnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust\nThe assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in Memo of Appeal\nfiled with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Benches, Bangalore

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

10 ITR(Trib) 479(Chen.) held that: Allowing the appeal, that the violation of the Prohibition of Capitation Fees Act could not be a ground to take away the registration of a charitable organization. The cancellation of registration by the Commissioner under section 12A on the ground of accepting capitation fees was not sustainable

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court