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

section 54/54F of the Act. The essence of the said provision is whether the assessee who received capital gains has invested in a residential house. Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions are not complete

AMANDA JOY PURAVANKARA ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 23(1)(c) to the present case. Amanda Joy Puravankara, Bengaluru Page 2 of 7 i. The Ld. Officers below erred failed to appreciate that the first house was continuously let out ever since it was acquired in 2011 and it could not be let out from October 2013 to May 2015 despite best of the efforts

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

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

158. PAN: AAACR 8801M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellants by : Shri V. Srinivasan, CA Respondent by : Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 26.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2016 ITA Nos.1607, 1630 & 1692/B/2012 Page 2 of 17 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member All these three appeals preferred by the assesses for the assessment years

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

158. PAN: AAACR 8801M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellants by : Shri V. Srinivasan, CA Respondent by : Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 26.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2016 ITA Nos.1607, 1630 & 1692/B/2012 Page 2 of 17 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member All these three appeals preferred by the assesses for the assessment years

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

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

158. PAN: AAACR 8801M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellants by : Shri V. Srinivasan, CA Respondent by : Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 26.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2016 ITA Nos.1607, 1630 & 1692/B/2012 Page 2 of 17 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member All these three appeals preferred by the assesses for the assessment years

MR. SRIDHAR MURTHY S,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sridhar Murthy S Vs The Income Tax Officer Karle Zenith, 100 Ft Kemapura Nfac, Delhi Main Road, Kasaba Holbli Nagavara Village Bengaluru 560043 Pan – Awzps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Rama Raju, Ca Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Nfac, Delhi/Cit(A)’S Order Dated 28.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) , Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities On Facts & Circumstances Of Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.2,19,796/- Under The Provisions Of Section 270A Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by following the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). The relevant finding of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal reads as follows: - “8. Now coming to the disallowance of Rs. 7,07,933, the assessee’s entire claim

M/S. G. R. DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K Garodiashri Laliet Kumarg.R Developers, 142-143, 1St Floor, Gr Plaza, D.V.G Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-. . Appellant Pan No.Aaefg3522F. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1), Bangalore. . Respondent * Appellant By : Shri K.R Pradeep, C.A Assessee By : Shri M.K Biju, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-03-2017

house as stated above within six months from this day and the second party shall secure necessary conversion and other permissions for establishing the club hosue with 3 star facilities, and commence functioning of the same within thirty six months from the date of sanction and conversion and plans.” 11. Further learned AR has also drawn our attention

SRI PAUL CHRISTADAS SALINS ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

house property was declared at (-) Rs. 1,26,000/- after claiming standard deduction u/s. 24a and interest u/s. 24b of Rs. 48,000/- and Rs. 2,38,000/- respectively. He submitted that in that year, there was no scrutiny and hence, return filed by the assessee was accepted by the department. He submitted that under these facts

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

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

SUBBALAKSHMI KURADA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 274 rws 271 of the Act is defective as the same has been issued for both concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and thus, the entire proceedings are bad in law and hence, the order passed deserves to be cancelled. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

158,31,14,068/- - Interest on investment Rs. 16,59,75,667/- - Interest on other advances. Rs. 1,77,67,660/- - Other income Rs. 83,31,614/- 12.4 By the AO, the incomes other than interest on loan through PCARD, aggregating to Rs. 19,20,74,941/- was considered as not attributable to business of providing credit facility under section

PRADIP KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(7), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

house property sold for ₹61,00,000/-on 07.07.2010, Reliance is placed on CIT v. Kulwant Rai [291 ITR 36 (Delhi)). Page 2 of 5 2. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ₹ 29,15,000/- was deposited in the bank on the very date of execution of the sale deed (07.07.2010), clearly establishing a nexus between the sale consideration