DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

house at Coonoor 'Rs.43,57,400). h) In respect of payments made by Gokuldas Images to Personality Limited, the corresponding voucher entries / bank statements of M/s. GIPL. i) Copy of General Ledger Report from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 under the head " General Ledger -Loans to Directors" in the group name "Loans and advances" as appearing in the books of M/s. Gokaldas

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

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

SMT.VIDYA DEVI LADHANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

22)(e) cannot be made in the reassessment as there was no incriminating material the assessees. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that Section 153A permits assessment or reassessment of the total income and it is open to the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess any income during the course of assessment under Section 153A

WEP PERIPHERALS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

Housing & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 59 CCH 0141. m) He submitted that when the lender EPL has declared dividend and paid dividend distribution tax, there is no intention to avoid payment of dividend distribution tax u/s 115-O of the Act and provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be applied. For this purpose, he relied

M/S ASSETZ INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds 3

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2014-15

House, No.30, 3rd Floor Deputy Commissioner of Crescent Road Income-tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 001 Circle-2(2) Bengaluru PAN NO : AAGCA7614K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R. Date of Hearing : 06.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.03.2022 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal was originally disposed

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. SRI. J. KRISHNA PALEMAR, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

22 of I. T. Act, for any property occupied by the assessee for the purpose of any business carried on by him, Annual value is not to be computed for taxing under the head Income from house Property. Since, we have upheld the order of CIT (A) on this aspect in respect of three properties out of five properties

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

house property. Therefore, in our considered view disallowances made by the AO under section 80P(2) of the Act on the amount of rent on building for Rs. 15,57,093/- shown in profit & loss account under the head other income is misplaced and amounts to double taxation. Accordingly, the disallowances of other income under section 80P(2

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

2[47][v] of the Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act prior to enactment of Section 50-D of the Act which is with effect from 01/04/2013 and consequently, no capital gains was assessable at all from this angle of the matter as well. 10.2 Thirdly and without prejudice to the above, the learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 56(2)(x) of the Act is applicable from 01.04.2017 and the case is\nrelated to the Financial Year 2016-17, the assessee has made part\n(substantial) payment before 31.03.2017 and at that time the charging\nsection was not in force in the statute book. Therefore, the addition made by\nthe AO is beyond the provision

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

house property. However, regarding the Purvankara flat, the Tribunal found that the AO rightly considered the fair rental value as the property was not let for the entire year.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "44AD", "23(1)(a)", "23(1)(c)", "24(a)", "22

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying