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

SEKHON JAGTAR SINGH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2017-18

housing loan, which was added to the total income of the assessee. As such, the income was determined in the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act at Rs. 58,70,680/- only. As the assessee did not file original return of income, the AO initiated penalty proceedings for underreporting of income, which came to be confirmed

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

houses or commercial\nproperty would decide to purchase real estate property based on the\nassessee's ownership or display of luxury cars. Thus, there is no real\nbusiness connection between luxury car expenses and the assessee's\nreal estate activities.\n12.3 The learned DR also contended that the assessee had failed to\nproduce any concrete evidence to establish business expediency

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(4), BENGALURU

houses or commercial\nproperty would decide to purchase real estate property based on the\nassessee's ownership or display of luxury cars. Thus, there is no real\nbusiness connection between luxury car expenses and the assessee's\nreal estate activities.\n12.3 The learned DR also contended that the assessee had failed to\nproduce any concrete evidence to establish business expediency

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

houses or commercial\nproperty would decide to purchase real estate property based on the\nassessee's ownership or display of luxury cars. Thus, there is no real\nbusiness connection between luxury car expenses and the assessee's\nreal estate activities.\n12.3 The learned DR also contended that the assessee had failed to\nproduce any concrete evidence to establish business expediency

TIRUPATHI ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

194(b) of the Act. Assessee has offered return of income by applying 8% of the total receipt as income of the assessee under the presumptive taxation. According to the ld.AO, the provisions of presumptive taxation u/s. Page 3 of 6 44AD does not apply to the assessee as the income of the assessee is chargeable to tax under

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

houses or commercial\nproperty would decide to purchase real estate property based on the\nassessee's ownership or display of luxury cars. Thus, there is no real\nbusiness connection between luxury car expenses and the assessee's\nreal estate activities.\n\n12.3 The learned DR also contended that the assessee had failed to\nproduce any concrete evidence to establish business

BADERUNNISA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2023-24

house property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 2 crores. The appellant assessee claimed that entire sale consideration was received in her bank account only after deduction of TDS amounting to Rs. 2 Lakh only in her name only. As per the assessee, she computed the capital gain on the sale of the property along tax liability

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 8.16 In light of the above decision, it is the rightful owner

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 8.16 In light of the above decision, it is the rightful owner

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 8.16 In light of the above decision, it is the rightful owner

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 8.16 In light of the above decision, it is the rightful owner

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 8.16 In light of the above decision, it is the rightful owner

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

194/- to tax net. Besides the appellant in earlier A.Y. had shown these interest as income and paid tax thereon since 1995. Facts being same, it should not have opted to go out of tax net. In view of the above, I (see) no reason to interfere in the order of the AO. 7. However, the AR, at the appellate

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

property. The mere issue of warrant of authorization\nwithout there being search of the premises mentioned in the warrant\nof authorization would be meaningless and would not serve the\npurpose of section 132 of the Act. It may be illustrated by taking an\nexample that if warrant of authorization under section 132 is issued in\nthe name of “A” after

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 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 The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

house property, capital gains and business income. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 18.09.2015. The assessee’s AR attended hearing on 30.12.2016 and 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan produced the books of accounts and other details. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded the assessment

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

194(1) of the Act for the payment of rent Rs. 2,52,000/- and 30% thereof amounting to Rs. 75,600/- c. Disallowance of the salary expenses to the extent of 30% of Rs. 1,09,40,705/- amounting to Rs. 32,82,212/- for not substantiating the genuineness/applicability of provisions of TDS. d. Vehicle maintenance: The Assessing Officer

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house intangibles and owns proprietary software products. Some of the products developed and owned by the company are Unitrax (R), ACCURUSI, Service First TM. Further, as a result of high brand value, the company enjoys a high bargaining power in the market. The company has also incurred significant expenses in foreign currency amounting to 41.37% of its total sales which