M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

section 24 (b) of the IT Act; For the above reasons and for such other reasons which may be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid appeal be allowed.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of leasing of properties

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

section 24 (b) of the IT Act; For the above reasons and for such other reasons which may be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid appeal be allowed.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of leasing of properties

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

section 24 (b) of the IT Act; For the above reasons and for such other reasons which may be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid appeal be allowed.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of leasing of properties

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

123/- 20. The Learned Appellate Commissioner erred in upholding the withdrawal of interest allowed u/s 244A as consequential. Total tax effect 7,48,46,006/- 2. The assessee filed the following additional evidence along with application dated 5.9.2019 before us. “Sharing agreement dated 26.10.2016 between the assessee and developer regarding property No.123, Infantry Road, Bengaluru” 3. However, at the time

M/S PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.806/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Prestige Garden Constructions P. Ltd, The Falcon House No.1, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Appellant Pan : Aabcp2901E V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padamchand Khindha, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, Cit Heard On : 25.05.2016 Pronounced On : 10.06.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

section 263 be quashed or in the alternative the income /loss from the business of operation and maintenance of Forum Value Mall, Whitefield, Bangalore be held as assessable under the head 'Profits and gains of business'. 02. Facts apropos are that assessee doing the business of real estate and commercial space had filed return of income on 14.10.2010, declaring business

SHRI.RAGHURAM P NAMBYAR,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

house property and the ld. Assessing Officer failed to apply the rule of consistency and now cannot change his opinion for this assessment year under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in law in upholding the disallowance of the claim of exemption under Section 54EC of the Act of Rs.50

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 10 of 31 11. The Appellant craves leave

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 10 of 31 11. The Appellant craves leave

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 10 of 31 11. The Appellant craves leave

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 10 of 31 11. The Appellant craves leave

M/S. PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, PUTTUR

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiita. No. 1306/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Service The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd., Ward – 1, Puttur – Ujire, 574 201. Belthangady – 574 240. Vs. Pan: Aaaju0058J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit.(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai, Jm. Present Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Dated 14/03/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Mangaluru For Assessment Year 2016-17 On The Following Grounds:

123 taxmann.com 161 (SC) has held that the expression “Members” is not defined in the Income-tax Act. Hence, it is necessary to construe the expression “Members” in section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the light of definition of that expression as contained in the concerned co-operative societies Act. In view of this, the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property belongs to Sh. C.T.Ravi, however the construction was done by the assessee company. 10. In response to the notice u/s. 153C of the Act the Assessee Company filed his returns & assessments duly completed thereafter with the following additions being made to the Income Returned for the impugned assessment years: ITA Nos.299 to 301/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 42 Details

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property belongs to Sh. C.T.Ravi, however the construction was done by the assessee company. 10. In response to the notice u/s. 153C of the Act the Assessee Company filed his returns & assessments duly completed thereafter with the following additions being made to the Income Returned for the impugned assessment years: ITA Nos.299 to 301/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 42 Details

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property belongs to Sh. C.T.Ravi, however the construction was done by the assessee company. 10. In response to the notice u/s. 153C of the Act the Assessee Company filed his returns & assessments duly completed thereafter with the following additions being made to the Income Returned for the impugned assessment years: ITA Nos.299 to 301/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 42 Details

M/S KEMWELL PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

House, 11, Tumkur Road, tax, Bengaluru-560 022. Circle-11(5), PAN – AAACK 5854 F Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Harish V.S, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 21.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order

RAJARATHNAM'S JEWELS,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

houses were adopting different yard stick to arrive at the value of the stock, the institute came out with a guideline/uniform policy to be followed by every person engaged in business. The assessee has computed the profit without taking in to account the value of entire stock available and used in the assessee's business; which is not correct

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

property as benamidar for the assessee. 89. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs Smt. Sunitha Dhadda 406 ITR 220 held that when the department alleges the receipt of "on-money" the burden of proof is on it to prove the fact with acceptable evidence. 90. The ld. AR briefly rebutting each of the adverse presumptions drawn

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

property as benamidar for the assessee. 89. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs Smt. Sunitha Dhadda 406 ITR 220 held that when the department alleges the receipt of "on-money" the burden of proof is on it to prove the fact with acceptable evidence. 90. The ld. AR briefly rebutting each of the adverse presumptions drawn