ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. SHRI.H B SUDARSHAN , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) in not justified in confirming the erroneous additions made by the A.O of Rs. 40,75,000/- being the alleged undisclosed investment made in land under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. ITA Nos.309

SHRI H B SUDARSHAN ,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) in not justified in confirming the erroneous additions made by the A.O of Rs. 40,75,000/- being the alleged undisclosed investment made in land under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. ITA Nos.309

SHRI H B SUDARSHAN ,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) in not justified in confirming the erroneous additions made by the A.O of Rs. 40,75,000/- being the alleged undisclosed investment made in land under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. ITA Nos.309

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI H B SUDARSHAN , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) in not justified in confirming the erroneous additions made by the A.O of Rs. 40,75,000/- being the alleged undisclosed investment made in land under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. ITA Nos.309

SHRI H B SUDARSHAN ,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) in not justified in confirming the erroneous additions made by the A.O of Rs. 40,75,000/- being the alleged undisclosed investment made in land under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. ITA Nos.309

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. SHRI. H B SUDARSHAN , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) in not justified in confirming the erroneous additions made by the A.O of Rs. 40,75,000/- being the alleged undisclosed investment made in land under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. ITA Nos.309

SHRI H B SUDARSHAN,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) in not justified in confirming the erroneous additions made by the A.O of Rs. 40,75,000/- being the alleged undisclosed investment made in land under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. ITA Nos.309

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. SHRI H B SUDARSHAN , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) in not justified in confirming the erroneous additions made by the A.O of Rs. 40,75,000/- being the alleged undisclosed investment made in land under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. ITA Nos.309

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI.H B SUDARSHAN , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) in not justified in confirming the erroneous additions made by the A.O of Rs. 40,75,000/- being the alleged undisclosed investment made in land under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case. ITA Nos.309

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

234-D of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the same deserves to be cancelled. 6. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 4. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 4. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant

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

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

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded

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 because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income. Accordingly, ground no. 19 of the Assessee is allowed. 18. The Ground no. 20 of the Appeal is with respect to the correct carry forward of losses. The Assessee has computed the carry forward of the losses

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

234 B 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. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete 46. any or all of the grounds