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

house property. Provisions of section 194I is not talking about only renting of the property but also renting of machinery

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

house property and not plants & Machineries. The assessee ignored the fact that there may be case that TDS was deducted at higher rate inadvertently however, the section was quoted correctly by the deductor.” 3 Ramesh Narayana Reddy (HUF) 3. At the outset the revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) on three counts. a. NAFC has erred

IVORYBRICK HOMES LLP,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

property (Form 26QB) as compared to total income. Page 3 of 10 5. Taxable income shown in revised return is less than the taxable income shown in original return and large refund has been claimed. 3. The Ld.AO accordingly issued 143 (2) notice and 142 (1) of the act on assessee calling upon details. In response to statutory notices assessee

THE MALNAD ARECANUT SYNDICATE PRIVATE LIMITED ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23

194I(b) 68,844/- Total 7,79,679/- 3. Assessee filed return of income on 19.11.2022 declaring total income of Rs.38,28,600/- as under, and claimed TDS as noted above : i. Income from House Property – Rs.4,44,807/- ii. Profit and Gains from Business/Profession – Rs.31,65,369/- iii. Income from Other Sources – Rs.2,18,422/- 4. The CPC issued