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

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

house property; ii) Disallowance of deduction u/s.80C of Rs.1,00,000. iii) Disallowance of cost of improvement to the tune of Rs.1,56,98,159 in computing LTCG. iv) Disallowance of deduction u/s.54B of the Act to the extent of Rs.3,68,14,038. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Housing, though the material found in the possession of the other person, the Assessing Officer was justified in considering the same in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Further the Act does not contemplate parallel proceedings under section 153A and 153C of the Act. The acceptance of the contention of the assessee would be contrary to the scheme

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

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

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

KEMPAPURA SRINIVASAREDDY UDAY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeykempapura Srinivasareddy Uday Dcit, Central Circle-2(2) Bengaluru 328, B Block Aces Layout Kundalahalli Vs. Bangalore 560037 Pan – Actpu3804H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Satish M., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

section 80C of the Act to the extent of Rs. 150,000/-; 8. Based on the above, the Learned AO has erred in law and in fact in raising demand by levying interest u.s 234A/234B of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual deriving income under the head ‘income from house

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (3), BENGALURU vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTHA, CHICKAMANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHICKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANATH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

M/S KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as common grounds of law are raised by the assessee

216 ITR 607], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : We may first consider the meaning of the expression "profits or gains chargeable". On the first impression, the said expression appears to refer only to profits or gains of business or profession chargeable under section 28. But this court has repeatedly held that the said expression

SHRI.BIJUKUMAR SADASIVAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

property was purchased for a consideration of Rs.13,22,700. Hence the Assessing Officer has restricted the claim of deduction under Section 54F to Rs.13,17,358 and disallowed the balance amount of Rs.20,93,216 which was added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals

M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, The Deputy #14-7-1005, Scdcc Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Head Office Building, Central Circle – 1, Kodialbail, Vs. Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. Pan: Aaatn7594E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate & Assessee By Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence. Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit [A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Disallowance Of The Exemption Claimed U/S.11 Of The Act

216(Kolkata — Trib) 167 ITD 420 (Kolkata — Trib) 190 TTJ 857 (Kolkata — Trib)  Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ACIT(Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority reported in 143 taxmann.com 278(SC) 16. The Ld.AR rebutting the submissions of the Ld.DR contended, that that the facts in the case of Janalakshmi Social Services

SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

216 taxmann.com 0166 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the working out the cost of construction on state PWD rate should be considered. He has also relied upon the decision of the Chennai bench of the tribunal in case of K. Damodaraswamy Naidu Vs ACIT (1997) 59 ITD 0510 and submitted that the tribunal while