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

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

housing loan from HDFC Bank to the extent of Rs.55,00,000/-. The statement of HDFC Loan account was also submitted before the AO and as well as DRP. Further, with regard to balance of funding to the extent of Rs.14,00,000/- for the property, the assessee explained as below- 1. Rs.5,00,000/- was paid through vide

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

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

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) , 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), 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

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

house property), 28 (Profits and gains of business), 45 (Capital Gains) and 56 (Income from other sources). Even income arising from international transactions between AE must satisfy the test of income under the Act and must find its home in one of the above heads i.e., charging provisions.” Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the provisions of Chapter X cannot

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

168): The facts on record would clearly go to show that the father of the assessee had definitely diverted a portion of the borrowed capital for his own purposes and not for business purposes. In such a case, it cannot be said that there can be a presumption that a part of the capital would have been diverted

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

168 as against Rs.88,82,67,868 claimed by the assessee. The assessment was completed after the Dept. conducted a survey under Section 133A of the Act on 23.2.2006; recorded statement and made enquiries in respect of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act; which establishes that the Department had accepted the assessee's eligibility

NICE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES INC.,USA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-1(2)INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

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

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

property rights of the software rests with the assessee and is never transferred to customers in India. ii. The income would be considered as Royalty only is user is permitted commercial exploitation of the copy right in the software iii. What is given to the customer is only to use the copy righted article and not the copy right