SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 54F of the Act by holding that the said benefit is available only in case of one residential flat for the relevant assessment year. 6.3 The AO erred in not allowing the said exemption u/s. 54F of the Act even to the extent of flats acquired by the Appellant, situated in the same building

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 54F of the Act by holding that the said benefit is available only in case of one residential flat for the relevant assessment year. 6.3 The AO erred in not allowing the said exemption u/s. 54F of the Act even to the extent of flats acquired by the Appellant, situated in the same building

M/S SILVER SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

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

House Property”. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that, the assessee had not let out the building as it is, and the assessee is providing other services also which is nothing but carrying on business. 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that, the amount paid

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

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

Section 234A(3) clearly contemplates that a 'return of income' filed after the expiry of the stipulated time period shall still continue to be a 'return of income' filed by the assessee pursuant to the notice u/s 148. We find that our aforesaid view also stands fortified from the very fact that after the assessee had filed the 'return

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

SRI DHEERAJ GOVINDAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2724/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Dheeraj Govindappa, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, 1183, 3Rd Cross, 3Rd Stage, Ward – 4[2][2], Hal Layout, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Bpqpg 3893 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Satya Sai Rath, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 6. Ground No. 2 – Exemption u/s 54F of the Act 6.1 This ground raised by the assessee (supra), challenges the action of the authorities below in restricting the quantum of exemption claimed by the assessee i.e., Rs.80 lakhs to 50% thereof. According to the learned

SHARADAMBA ENTERPRISES,HUBLI vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Sharadama Enterprises, Station Road, Hubli. … Appellant Pan:Abofs 5233 J Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubli. … Respondent

house property and same is to be accepted without any variations and the action of the Assessing Officer (as confirmed by Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ) of taxing the rentals as Business Income is to be deleted. 3.3 On proper appreciation of facts and the law applicable the action of authorities below being erroneous on facts

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction under

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

234A and 234B was also disputed. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) had adjudicated the grounds issue wise. As far as the limitation ground raised by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the letter furnished by the assessee on 17/07/2023 in which the assessee had prayed to decide the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act based

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

234A and 234B was also disputed. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) had adjudicated the grounds issue wise. As far as the limitation ground raised by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the letter furnished by the assessee on 17/07/2023 in which the assessee had prayed to decide the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act based

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 20. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” Assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 (ITA No.738/Bang/2015). 4. Before us, apart from putting forth oral arguments

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

DR ANJANAIAH ,TUMKUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee’s stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiita No.676(Bang)/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dr. Anjanaiah, Maruti Hospital, Maralur Ring Road Maralur, Tumkur Panno.Acjpa1504A Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2(3)(1), Bangalore Respondent & Ita No.677(Bang)/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dr.M.A.Venkatesh Murthy, Martuti Hospital, Maralur Ring Road, Maralur, Tumkur Pan No.Ablpv0955B Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2(3)(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit

house to avail the benefit under section 54F of the Act. 6. Without prejudice, the capital gains as computed by the assessing authority is excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in toto. 7. The Ld.Commissioner(A) erred in confirming the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 8.For these and other grounds that

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

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 16. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of the appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” Revenue’s appeal. 26.2 In Revenue’s appeal, the grounds raised are as under :- “ (i) The learned

PRAVESH KOTHARI L/H OF SOHANRAJ KHIMRAJ KOTHARI ,HUBLI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3, HUBLI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

234A be deleted; (IV) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; (V) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted. (VI) The appellant prays accordingly. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. Assessee filed its return of income on 03/10/11 declaring total income of Rs.21,79,790/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section