SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. GUNDUR,HUBBALLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, HUBBALLI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

house property. ITA Nos.1198 to 1200/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 6 3. The CIT also noticed that the DVO in his report had valued the property at Rs.78,82,000/- as against the book value of Rs.52,14,444/-. There was thus a difference of Rs.26,67,556/- which had to be brought to tax as unexplained investment. Since

SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. GUNDUR,HUBBALLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, HUBBALLI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

house property. ITA Nos.1198 to 1200/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 6 3. The CIT also noticed that the DVO in his report had valued the property at Rs.78,82,000/- as against the book value of Rs.52,14,444/-. There was thus a difference of Rs.26,67,556/- which had to be brought to tax as unexplained investment. Since

SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. GUNDUR,HUBBALLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , HUBBALLI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

house property. ITA Nos.1198 to 1200/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 6 3. The CIT also noticed that the DVO in his report had valued the property at Rs.78,82,000/- as against the book value of Rs.52,14,444/-. There was thus a difference of Rs.26,67,556/- which had to be brought to tax as unexplained investment. Since

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

142A of the Act on 14.06.2021 who submitted the valuation report on 26.10.2021. It was also the report of the DVO that assessee has not provided any information or details with respect to the property. The notices under section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

142A of the Act on 14.06.2021 who submitted the valuation report on 26.10.2021. It was also the report of the DVO that assessee has not provided any information or details with respect to the property. The notices under section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

142A of the Act on 14.06.2021 who submitted the valuation report on 26.10.2021. It was also the report of the DVO that assessee has not provided any information or details with respect to the property. The notices under section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

142A of the Act on 14.06.2021 who submitted the valuation report on 26.10.2021. It was also the report of the DVO that assessee has not provided any information or details with respect to the property. The notices under section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

M/S. GMR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2310/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Dy.Commissioner Of (Successor To Gmr Holdings P.Ltd) Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(2) V. Bangalore. No.25/1 Skip House, Museum Rd. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccr1554R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Yogesh Thar, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per Bench:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 14.10.20199 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds & Various Sub Grounds. The Assessee By Its Application Dated 13.07.2020 Has Also Raised An Additional Ground. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted That Grounds No.Ii & Iii May Be Adjudicated & The Other Grounds May Be Left Open. Therefore, Grounds No.Ii & Iii Are Reproduced Below:-

142A of the Act; and 3 IT(TP)A No.2310/Bang/2019. M/s GMR Enterprises Private Limited. d) Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act being an anti-avoidance provision introduced with the intention of deterring generation and use of unaccounted money, would not apply to cases where the issue of shares is to the existing shareholders on proportionate basis or genuine

SRI. NARAYANARAO M. MORE,,BIDAR vs. ITO, BIDAR

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

142A of the Act to the Department Valuation Officer (DVO). After receiving the report of the valuation officer, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the assessee by issuing a notice under Section 148 on 23.3.2011. The assessments were completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dt.28.12.2011. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing

MS. PUSPHA RAO PAMIDI,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahums. Pushpa Rao Pamidi Vs Dcit, Circle - 2(1) No. 156/1, C/O T. Viswanath & Co Bengaluru Sharada Mansion, 2Nd Floor R V Road, V V Puram Bengaluru 560004 Pan – Bhhpp1695K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sathish S., Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.07.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit We Find That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Cannot Be Attributed To Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay Of Four Days & Proceed To Dispose Of The Case On Merits.

House at No.117, 3rd Cross, 4th Phase J P Nagar Bangalore-560078, Super Built area, RCC Framed Duplex type villa having an area in Ground Floor 2474 Sq. Ft. and First Floor 1261 Sq. ft. totalling 3735 Sq. Ft. or 347 Sq. Mtrs, Full value of consideration received / receivable 5,70,00,000 Less Indexed cost of acquisition of land