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 CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

159 of the paper book. Further this is not an isolated transaction carried out through Shri P. Dayananda Pai but it is a regular practice of the assessee to purchase and sell the property through Shri P. Dayananda Pai. All other 36 Canara Housing Devt. Co. transactions of purchase and sale have been accepted by the Assessing Officer

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 271(1)(c) of the Act were simultaneously initiated. The assessment was completed making the following additions / disallowances :- i) Disallowance of interest of Rs.1,50,000 while computing loss form house property; ii) Disallowance of deduction u/s.80C of Rs.1,00,000. iii) Disallowance of cost of improvement to the tune of Rs.1,56,98,159

SHRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri. Praveen Kumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.222, K. H. Ranganatha Colony Income Tax, Main Road, Vs. Circle – 3(2)(1), Opp Bhel Mysore Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan : Addpk 6151 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Lokesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. A. Ramesh Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Dated 29.10.2018, For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

159/- resulting into LTCG of Rs.10,36,841/- and the assessee claimed deduction of this amount under section 54 of the IT Act and the second Long Term Capital Asset sold by the assessee is a site at Kamakshipalya which was sold for Rs.57 lakhs and its indexed cost of acquisition was Rs.1,82,244/- resulting into LTCG of Rs.55

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

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , , BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

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

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

159 Taxman 102 (Delhi) and\nreiterated that searches can be temporarily concluded for practical and\nlogistical reasons, and there is no legal bar to the same warrant being\nexecuted on multiple occasions until the search is finally completed. The\nconcept of “temporary conclusion” is a matter of administrative\nconvenience and does not signify the end of the search.\n\n9.1.5

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

house property, it can also set up another line of business, it may even pay dividends out of this income to its shareholders. There is no overriding title of anybody diverting the income at source to pay the amount to the creditors of the company. It is well- settled that tax is attracted at the point when the income

SMT RUDRAMMA L/H KIRAN PANDURANG ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiita. Nos. 1681 To 1684/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13 Smt. Rudramma, L/H – Kiran Pandurang, The Assistant No. 48, 1St B Main, Commissioner Of J.S. Nagar, Income Tax, Saraswathipuram, Circle – 6 (2) (1), Nandini Layout, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 096. Pan: Aijpr6573Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.R. Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Senthil .P, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Bangalore – 6 Dated 22/01/2019 For Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2012-13. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under 2.1 As Per The Information Received From Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit-2(4), Bangalore An Enquiry Was Conducted In The Case Of Mr. Harikumar Jha, S/O Dr. Harihar Jha, Additional Chief Conservator Of Forest.

house property bearing no.160, 14th Block RMV II stage, Bangalore, with Rudramma on 08/05/2009 for an amount of Rs.2,60,00,000/-. 2.3 The investigation team recorded statement u/s 131 of the IT Act from Mr.Kiran Panduranga and Kiran Pandurang has accepted that his mother (Smt. Rudramma) had advanced Rs.2,44,00,000/- to Smt.Vibha Jha for purchase of above

SMT RUDRAMMA L/H KIRAN PANDURANG ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiita. Nos. 1681 To 1684/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2012-13 Smt. Rudramma, L/H – Kiran Pandurang, The Assistant No. 48, 1St B Main, Commissioner Of J.S. Nagar, Income Tax, Saraswathipuram, Circle – 6 (2) (1), Nandini Layout, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 096. Pan: Aijpr6573Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.R. Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Senthil .P, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Bangalore – 6 Dated 22/01/2019 For Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2012-13. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under 2.1 As Per The Information Received From Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit-2(4), Bangalore An Enquiry Was Conducted In The Case Of Mr. Harikumar Jha, S/O Dr. Harihar Jha, Additional Chief Conservator Of Forest.

house property bearing no.160, 14th Block RMV II stage, Bangalore, with Rudramma on 08/05/2009 for an amount of Rs.2,60,00,000/-. 2.3 The investigation team recorded statement u/s 131 of the IT Act from Mr.Kiran Panduranga and Kiran Pandurang has accepted that his mother (Smt. Rudramma) had advanced Rs.2,44,00,000/- to Smt.Vibha Jha for purchase of above