KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

234A and 234B was also disputed.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) had adjudicated the grounds issue wise. As far as the\nlimitation ground raised by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the\nletter furnished by the assessee on 17/07/2023 in which the assessee had\nprayed to decide the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act based

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

234A and 234B was also disputed.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) had adjudicated the grounds issue wise. As far as the\nlimitation ground raised by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the\nletter furnished by the assessee on 17/07/2023 in which the assessee had\nprayed to decide the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act based

PADMANABAN SUKHUMARAN ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee towards the interest claimed u/s

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernable from the order and hence deserves

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

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act are agitated, in addition to the addition of Rs.7,55,85,800/- made by the AO on protective basis. 2.1 The appellant's first appeal was dismissed in Limine by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee had not paid the taxes in full in respect of the admitted income

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property on the properties held in the name of his son, Shri. Vajramuni K.P is found to be more than the taxable income and it is noticed that they are also non-filers for the purpose of Income Tax. It was found that no books of accounts are maintained and there is no record with regard to the income

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property on the properties held in the name of his son, Shri. Vajramuni K.P is found to be more than the taxable income and it is noticed that they are also non-filers for the purpose of Income Tax. It was found that no books of accounts are maintained and there is no record with regard to the income

SMT.VANI SHREE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

house in India) (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, From a reading of the above, it is clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim exemption under the amended provisions since she was due to receive more than

CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

house property should be reckoned from the date of such order, on the facts and circumstances of the case. f. Without prejudice and not conceding that the sale consideration has been utilised within the time specified, the capital gains on sale of land could not have exceeded Rs.7,85,55,036/- on the facts and circumstances of the case

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

234A and 234B.\n\n4. Prayer\n\n4. 1. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the order passed under section 250 of the Act by the learned CIT(A), NFAC to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant be quashed or in the alternative the above grounds

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

house during the assessment year 2013-14 and hence not entitled for claim u/s. 54F. The AO passed an assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 21.03.2018 disallowing the claim u/s. 54F and recomputed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,50,88,284. Aggrieved Page 4 of 23 the assessee filed an appeal before

SMT. SARITHA JAIN,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-1(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 51/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Saritha Jain, The Income Tax Flat No. 3, 28/1, Officer Gowri Kunj, (International Palace Cross Road, Taxation), Vasanth Nagar, Ward – 1(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aedpj9216L Appellant Respondent

234A and 234B of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned Assessing Officer on the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The Appellant craves to add, alter, modify, substitute, change and delete any or all of the grounds and to file a paper book

SRI. SANDEEP NARAYAN GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

house was registered on 20.7.2013. The impugned conclusion that the assessee has made payment of the above amount from his unaccounted money is factually erroneous. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the addition made for purchase of an immovable property for Rs. 2,02,00,000 is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Addition

SHRI. SRINIVAS DHRUVA RAO KONGOVI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

section 234A raised of Rs.34,080/- needs to Page 2 of 5 be withdrawn since no tax was due on the date of filing the return. The appellant seeks leave to add to, to amend, alter or delete any of the foregoing grounds as and when considered necessary/at the time of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case

CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INC.,UNITED STATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

234A and section 234B of the Act. 3. Ground 3: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act. All the above

CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INC.,UNITED STATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

234A and section 234B of the Act. 3. Ground 3: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act. All the above

SHRI. PANKAJ KAPUR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

234A = Rs.382120, 234B = Rs.1240426, 234C = Rs.18796/- 17.For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. Total tax effect – Rs.43,74,390/-” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of Income on 21.07.2017 declaring total income

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

property in a new residential house is eligible for claim of exemption under section 54 F of the Act, and ought to have given all the benefits and exemptions available as per the statute, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, to the right to seek waiver as per the parity of reasoning of the decision

NEELAVARA SANJEEVA RAO,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

house for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s 54F. The exemption of Rs 2,00,23,125 u/s 54F is to be allowed. 4.1 The learned assessing officer and CIT(A) has erred in not following the jurisdictional high court decisions wherein it is held that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption u/s 54/54F even though the investment

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

234A of the Act. (Rajarajeswar R.) Under Secretary to Government of India Copy to:- 1. PS to f M /MO to ;M/PS to MoS(R)/OSD to MoSi(R) 2. PPS to Secretary (Revenue) 3. Chairman (CBDT), All Members, Cenha! Board of Direct Taxes 4 Ali Pr.CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr DsGIT/DsGIT 5. Ali Joint Secretaries/CsIT, CBDT 6 Directors/Deputy Secretaries/Under Secretaries of Central