M/S SOBHA GLAZING & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

house property. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court along with the facts of the case are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:- “The assessee earned rental income from letting facilities of factory, land, building and offices. The assessee had taken interest-free security of Rs. 35 lakhs from two parties to whom the assets were leased

M/S SOBHA INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

house property. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court along with the facts of the case are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:- “The assessee earned rental income from letting facilities of factory, land, building and offices. The assessee had taken interest-free security of Rs. 35 lakhs from two parties to whom the assets were leased

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

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

140 ITR 517 settled that protective assessment should not be decided till substantive assessment reaches finality. 4. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the unexplained case deposit of Rs.40,12,909/ - whereas it remains unsubstantiated and without satisfactory explanation. Also, the case law Singhad Technical Education Society

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

140 ITR 517 settled that protective assessment should not be decided till substantive assessment reaches finality. 4. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the unexplained case deposit of Rs.40,12,909/ - whereas it remains unsubstantiated and without satisfactory explanation. Also, the case law Singhad Technical Education Society

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

140 ITR 517 settled that protective assessment should not be decided till substantive assessment reaches finality. 4. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the unexplained case deposit of Rs.40,12,909/ - whereas it remains unsubstantiated and without satisfactory explanation. Also, the case law Singhad Technical Education Society

SAPNA HEMANSHU SHAH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

section 54 in respect of expenditure on interiors of new residential house property amounting to Rs.8,65,641/-.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 22/07/2013 declaring income of Rs.5,49,610/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee submitted reply

MICHEAL GOWDA LAZAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Ksp No.48/Bang/2025 (In Ita No.1163/Bang/2025) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Micheal Gowda Lazar, Vs. Ito, No.1401, Near Begur Hospital, Begur Road, Ward – 4(3)(4), Begur, Bangalore. Bangalore – 5565 600. Pan : Acepl 0671 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. N. Madhavan, Redtd. Addl. Commissioner. Revenue By : Shri. Swaroop Mannava, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

house property and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act. During the Financial Year 2016-17, further opportunity was given to the assessee to furnish details of the asset sold along with copy of sale deed, details of cost of acquisition claimed along with supporting documentary evidences vide show cause notice No.ITBA/AST/7/143(3)(SCN)-2019-20/1012917(1) dated 29.11.2019. In response

SMT.UMA NARENDRA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

Housing Pvt. Ltd. vide JDA executed on 28.02.2017. On the basis of this information, the AO has formed a belief that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. T.K. Dayalu, 202 Taxmann 531, capital gain has escaped assessment u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], hence

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

property in the hand of the transferor and it gets vested in the hand of transferee. Therefore, in the case of transfer the right or ownership of transferor is completely extinguished and it is vested with the transferee. In the case on hand, the assessee is vested with the right to use the patented technical know how / technology under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI vs. SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN KALBURGI, HUBBALLI

house property and income from other sources as\nwell as exempt income under Section 10(2A) of the Act. Being a partnership firm,\nassessee filed original written of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19\nelectronically on 26.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.35,33,480/- and the\nsame was processed under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI vs. SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN KALBURGI, HUBBALLI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for both the\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page

house property and income from other sources as\nwell as exempt income under section 10(2A) of the Act. Being a partnership firm,\nassessee filed original written of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19\nelectronically on 26.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.35,33,480/- and the\nsame was processed under section