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

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

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 194I is not talking about only renting of the property but also renting of machinery, plant or equipment. Further, with respect to the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- received as sub letting charges at a trade exhibition is already shown by the Assessee by netting off the expenditure. Therefore, there is a double addition of all the above

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

7,55,85,800 added back to total income. The difference of Rs. 3,27,050 between the amounts as per vouchers & the books of account as discussed earlier is added back. The appellant submitted that additions made are unjustified & purely on suspicion & surmise, assumptions & presumptions. The expenses incurred are supported by vouchers that are in vogue in this line

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

PREMA KUMARI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, capital gain and from other sources. She also claimed gross agricultural income of Rs. 1,14,61,407/- on account of supply of cattle feed and grass to the M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park. As such, the assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park for supply of food grains, pulses, and feeds

PREMA KUMARI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, capital gain and from other sources. She also claimed gross agricultural income of Rs. 1,14,61,407/- on account of supply of cattle feed and grass to the M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park. As such, the assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park for supply of food grains, pulses, and feeds

SHRI. CHANNAKESHAVA Y S (HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

house property and also interest income during the year. 2. The Assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2012- 13, declaring total income of Rs.23,50,027/- on 04/10/2012 and subsequently the assessee filed revised return and declared Rs.21,76,730/- on 18/11/2012. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued and details

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

House Property Rs.3,36,000/-, income from business / profession under section 44AD of Rs.2,25,000/-, income from other sources of Rs.3,068/- and claimed deduction under chapter VI A of Rs.35,568/- and he also claimed TDS of Rs.65,000/-. Resultantly, there is refund of Rs.29,260/- as per the acknowledgement of return. Subsequently, notice under section

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

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

7 % in A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19. This proves that the loss in the first year was only due to initial set-up and competitive pricing pressures, and not because of any intention to shift profits or avoid tax. 8.4 In law also, under section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to carrying on business is deductible

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

7% in A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19.\nThis proves that the loss in the first year was only due to initial set-up\nand competitive pricing pressures, and not because of any intention to\nshift profits or avoid tax.\n8.4 In law also, under section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to\ncarrying on business is deductible