YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

section 23(1)(a) of the I.T.Act. To the proposed enhancement notice, the assessee filed objection vide its reply dated 22.02.2022. However, the objection of the assessee was rejected and the CIT(A) enhanced the addition made by the A.O. at Rs.5,23,320 to Rs.28,78,260 by working out the income from house property 3 ITA No.203/Bang/2022. Sri.Yash

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

156,00,000/- had been re-\ninvested in the acquisition of new residential unit at “Prestige\nWhite Meadows, Whitefield, Bangalore claimed exemption of entire\nCapital gain of Rs. 151,74,000/- U/s 54 F of the Income tax\nAct'1961.\n3.3 Whereas, the case was selected for scrutiny U/s 143(3) of\nthe Act by the jurisdiction

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

sections": [ "132A", "131", "153A", "143(3)", "69A", "156" ], "issues": "Whether additions for house property income are valid without incriminating material

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

156 ITR 497 wherein it is held as under:- “Facts should be viewed in natural perspective, having regard to the compulsion of the circumstances of a case. Where it is possible to draw two inferences from the facts and where there is no evidence of any dishonest or improper motive on the part of the assessee, it would be just

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

156 Amount paid towards interior works for the house 36,13,380 Total amount for claiming exemption u/s 54F in A.Y 2016-17 60,00,000 2.2 The assessee submitted that he had invested in purchase of new residential house within one year before the date of sale of original asset and satisfies all the criteria of section

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALAORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A of the Act. 24. The AO noted that during the election period on 07.05.2018, cash

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A of the Act. 24. The AO noted that during the election period on 07.05.2018, cash

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A of the Act. 24. The AO noted that during the election period on 07.05.2018, cash

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A of the Act. 24. The AO noted that during the election period on 07.05.2018, cash

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A of the Act. 24. The AO noted that during the election period on 07.05.2018, cash

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section 69A of the Act. 24. The AO noted that during the election period on 07.05.2018, cash

SIR ANIL DEV ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assesseee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013 – 14 Shree Anil Dev, C/O M/S Suresh & Co., Chartered Accountants, Dcit Circle – 2 (2) (1), #43/16, ‘Srinidhi’, 1St Floor, Vs. Bengaluru Surveyor Street, Basavangudi, Bengaluru - 560004 Pan : Aeppd4791L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree Nitish Ranjan, C. A. Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A) – 10 Bengaluru Dated 10.01.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds But Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That As Per These Grounds, This Is The Only Effective Grievance Of The Assessee That The Ao & Cit (A) Were Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee For Deduction U/S 54F. Page 2 Of 14

house and this is not the case of the revenue that this property is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F and the only objection of the revenue as per Para 5.2 of the order of CIT (A) is this that the assessee has also purchased another residential property at 180, NGEF Quarters, Binnamangala I Stage, Bangalore on 11.06.2012 in joint

L. VIVEKANANDA,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

house property in respect of the structure existing on the land for many years and had shown the property in the Wealth – tax return also, which all corroborate the fact that improvement was effected in construction of a building. 7. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not specifically dealing with this ground of appeal and there is no discussion

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

156 ITR 497 wherein it is held as under:- “"Facts should be viewed in natural perspective, having regard to the compulsion of the circumstances of a case. Where it is possible to draw two inferences from the facts and where there is no evidence of any dishonest or improper motive on the part of the assessee, it would be just

MRS.KAVITA TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazmrs. Kavita Tiwari, D-202, Adarsh Residency, 8Th Block, Jayanagar, Sangam Circle, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Acvpt1583G. Appellant By : Shri R.E Balasubramaniam, C.A Respondent By : Shri M.K Biju, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -10-2017 O R D E R

property." 7. On careful reading of section 54 as well as section 54EC on which reliance is placed makes it clear that when capital gains arise from the transfer of long term capital asset to an assessee and the assessee has within the period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

House property Rs.3,48,933 Income from Business Rs.3,12,000 Add: Income from Other sources Rs.5,35,221 Add: Unexplained cash credits in bank accounts Rs.1,12,02,680 Add: Unexplained capital accretion Rs.2,50,00,000 Rs.3,67,37,901 Rs.3,73,98,834 Gross total income 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

House property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under Section 56 of the Act. The Company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus fund in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interests will be chargeable under Section

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

House property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under Section 56 of the Act. The Company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus fund in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interests will be chargeable under Section

SRI. RAGHUNATH H. BADDI,HUBLI vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.George

property was declared, the deduction was disallowed by the AO. The AO however allowed deduction of Rs.30,000/- out of the interest paid under the 1st proviso to Sec.24(b) of the Act as the residential house was vacant during the previous year and its annual value was nil. This resulted in an addition to the total income of Rs.22