M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

section 27(iiib) of the Act. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, where the income may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be treated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business of the assessee. What is the test which has to be applied to determine whether

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

10 of 110 Central Government and get the approval of the prescribed authority. In the present case the fresh claim is made by the assessee with regard to conducting scientific research. Hence the burden is on the assessee to refer the matter to the prescribed authority for certificate. The assessee informed the Panel vide letter dated 24/09/2019 that it filed

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 35 of the Income Tax Act on 31/03/2015 but no approval is granted till date. Considering the fact that the assessee has applied for recognizing its activities as “scientific research" and DSIR has not granted the approval even after four and half years clearly show that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Sec 35. Hence this contention

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

35 nor the same had been filed by her as additional grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal is very specific and relates to investment of Rs 1,26,00,000/- in purchase of agricultural land. So this cannot be extended to include all claims related to Section 54 of the Act. Since the ground of appeal sought

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property at Delhi on 07/09/2015 for a total consideration of Rs. 70,00,000/- which was originally purchased on 04/06/2007 for a consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-, the index cost of acquisition being Rs.33,35,209/-. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the long term capital gain as computed by the assessee amounting to Rs.36

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

35 and\nsection 37 of the Wealth-tax Act. 1957 (27 of 1957). shall, with\nnecessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they\napply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under\nsub-section (1) of section 16/1 of that Act.-\n5.3 Therefore, it is quite clear that upon receipt of objection from the\nappellant

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.

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 PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 03.0.2020 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-2, Bangalore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

section 147, of the LT Act, on 08.03.20 13 in the case of HUF for the assessment year 2009-10 on the basis of submission furnished by G.Anitha (Individual) during the re-opened assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005-06 on 17.0 1.2013 stating that the property in question is HUF property of N.G.Balu Reddy". 2. On the facts

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

house property because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income. Accordingly, ground no. 19 of the Assessee is allowed. 18. The Ground no. 20 of the Appeal is with respect to the correct carry forward of losses. The Assessee has computed the carry forward of the losses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

10 or\nclause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB:\n5.0\nOn a reference being made by the AO as per second proviso to\nSection 143(3) of the Act, it is hereby proposed to invoke provisions of\nSection 12AB(4) of the Act that empower the Principal Commissioner or\nPage 35 of 81\nITA Nos.2106

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

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

houses,\nprinting presses, hostels, residential quarters and the like.\n(ii) To provide medical relief to the poor, distressed, afflicted and mentally,\nphysically, or psychologically handicapped persons, in India including supply of\nspectacles and other medical, surgical and remedial appliances and for this\npurpose to start, establish, conduct, maintain and manage and help\ndispensaries, hospitals, medical centres, diagnostic centres

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

10 or\nclause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB:\n5.0\nOn a reference being made by the AO as per second proviso to\nSection 143(3) of the Act, it is hereby proposed to invoke provisions of\nSection 12AB(4) of the Act that empower the Principal Commissioner or\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\nPage 35

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

35,00,000 AO had not received any confirmation from M/s Classic Auto Motives and the assessee was asked by a letter to show cause as to why the cash deposit of Rs. 35.00 lakhs should not be added Mr. Bhaskar Joseph, Bangalore Page 9 of 25 to. the total income as unexplained cash credits. In response to this

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

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 54 of the Act 77,14,409/- 17, The Learned CIT(A) erred in failing to direct the Assessing Officer to give credit for the sum of Rs.77,14,409/- out of the sum of Rs.79,73,867/- being the Prepaid Taxes for A.Y.2015-16 when the AO has brought to tax the Long-Term Capital A.Y.2014-15 which is Gains

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

10°/0 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the restriction was made by the assessee in respect of Assessment Year 200405 and from the grounds of memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, we find that the assessee had challenged the aforesaid finding which is evident from paragraphs 1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission is of no assistance