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

142(1) of the I.T.Act were also issued on various dates. The assessee declared the entire income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. However, the A.O. did not accept the contentions of the assessee and stated that the primary motive behind business should be profit making and the business activities are usually concerned with transfer, exchange

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

property and allowed indexed cost of acquisition and deduction under section 54B, but disallowed deduction under section 54F for not depositing sale proceeds in CGAS.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F, as the investment was made within the stipulated period for construction of a residential house, and Section

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

house property of Rs.59,535/- and interest from deposits in banks of Rs.60,557/- along with NIL capital gains after claim of cost of acquisition & deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee in his computation of income had also claimed deduction u/s 80TTA of the Act and thus declared total income of Rs.1,10,090/-.The AO while completing

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notices, the assessee filed his response on various dates and accordingly, the AO completed the assessment proceedings by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.54 of the Act amounting to Rs.36,64,791/- and added the same under the head Capital Gain u/s. 45 of the Act. 3.1 During the course

SRI. G.S. SHIVANNA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-4, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

142(1) dated 17.01.2017 was issued calling for the following details: Bank Statement for the period from 01.04.2015 to 1) 31.3.2016 Copy of Return of Income & Computation. 2) Financials for A.Y 2015-16 & Statement of Affairs. 3) Full details of TDS for A.Y 2015-16. 4) Large deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G: 54GA 5) 4. The assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

142 or under sub-section ()1) of section\n115WH or under section 148 for making of the return or by the\nnotice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first\nproviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should\nnot be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing\nOfficer, whichever is earlier

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

house property. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court set aside. There will be no order as to costs." *underlining for emphasis” 6.2 Having regard to the parity of reasoning of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMIYA BALA PAUL (Supra), it is noted that a Valuation Officer

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

MAHESH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house to make\nit better.\ne) No clarity under which section (i.e., 54 or 54F), the deduction\nwas claimed and allowed considering the nature and source of\nre-investment of LTCG.\n2.3 From the above, it is evident that the deduction u/s. 54/54F\nhas been allowed without proper examination of relevant details\nand materials. Accordingly, the assessment was completed

MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house to make\nit better.\ne) No clarity under which section (i.e., 54 or 54F), the deduction\nwas claimed and allowed considering the nature and source of\nre-investment of LTCG.\n2.3 From the above, it is evident that the deduction u/s. 54/54F\nhas been allowed without proper examination of relevant details\nand materials. Accordingly, the assessment was completed

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

house property income after giving opportunity to the assessee company. ix. In pursuance to that, the learned assessing officer issued notice to the assessee of granting opportunity on 18 December 2019, the assessee submitted and submission on 21 December 2019 and after considering the submission the assessment was completed wherein the learned assessing officer computed the gross annual value

VIJAY LAKHMICHAND ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee filed his submission on various dates during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO noted that the during the year under consideration, the assessee sold a house property situated at Villa No.72, Adarsh Palm Retreat, Bangalore for Rs.4,02,00,000/- (50% of Rs.8

NISHA VIJAY ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee filed his submission on various dates during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO noted that the during the year under consideration, the assessee sold a house property situated at Villa No.72, Adarsh Palm Retreat, Bangalore for Rs.4,02,00,000/- (50% of Rs.8

AZIM HASHAM PREMJI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

142(1) was also issued. The AO on the basis that the assessee had taxable receipts from house property as per the Schedule TDS-2 which is higher than the receipts from the house property shown in ITR, sought for the details about the house properties at Yercaud, Coonoor and Mahabaleshwar for ascertaining the deemed rental value. The assessee

AZIM HASHAM PREMJI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

142(1) was also issued. The AO on the basis that the assessee had taxable receipts from house property as per the Schedule TDS-2 which is higher than the receipts from the house property shown in ITR, sought for the details about the house properties at Yercaud, Coonoor and Mahabaleshwar for ascertaining the deemed rental value. The assessee

CHANDRA SHEKHAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)

142(1) of the Act. The AO made additions in respect of the income from house property, income from construction business, income from contract work and income from travel business. The AO also treated the cash credits as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. The AO estimated the income of hotel business by taking the profit