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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

House Property, the Assessing Officer is required to allow full deduction for the same amount collected and retained by Lido while determining the Annual value of the property under section 23 of the Income-tax Act. Without Prejudice to Ground Nos.3 to 5, CAM charges could only be taxed as Business Income in the hands of the Appellant

SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

property vide Sec 2(14) r.w Explanation 2 to Section 2(47) of the Act namely the term "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to include the asset and the right or interest in the asset in any manner whatsoever, which matter has not been considered by the Lower Authorities. 3. The Ld AO erred in not considering that

SNEHALATHA SINGHI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 68 of the Act. 20. That the Authorities below erred in refusing to apply the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd. 21. That the Authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.49,54,368/- as Unexplained Expenditure

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

111A" , Also copies of 142(1) have been submitted before the Hon'ble CIT in which it is clearly seen that the various documents on LTCG has been sought and details furnished. 14. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT ought to have appreciated the fact that the aforesaid issue on which the learned CIT had sought to revise