M/S CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2003-04 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

house property in the order of rectification is not in accordance with law. 8. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the status of the appellant is firm and any receipts or income has to be treated as income from business as per the provisions of and circumstances of the case. 9. The order passed by the learned authorities without

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 54 of the Act 77,14,409/- 17, The Learned CIT(A) erred in failing to direct the Assessing Officer to give credit for the sum of Rs.77,14,409/- out of the sum of Rs.79,73,867/- being the Prepaid Taxes for A.Y.2015-16 when the AO has brought to tax the Long-Term Capital A.Y.2014-15 which is Gains

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

property by the builder is beyond control of the assessee on the facts of the case. 3 a) The appellant denies herself liable to be levied Rs.2,74,536/- interest under sections 234B and 234D of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

234D of the Act. 12) For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee during the relevant year has sold a residential property for a consideration of Rs. 2,01,24,000 vide sale deed

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

234D is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay any interest. The grounds mentioned above are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or, at the time of hearing of the appeal

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

234D is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay any interest. The grounds mentioned above are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or, at the time of hearing of the appeal

DR. SAIF SALAHUDDIN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. A. K. Garodiaassessment Years : 2011-12 Dr. Saif Salahuddin, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 511, 5Th Main, Income Tax , 3Rd Block, Koramangala, Circle - 2(3)(1), Bengaluru – 560 034. Bengaluru. Pan : Apnps 2167 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 .09.2018 O R D E R

234D of the Act. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. 2. Though various grounds are raised, but they all relate to the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act. The facts in brief borne out from the record are that

M/S. G. R. DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K Garodiashri Laliet Kumarg.R Developers, 142-143, 1St Floor, Gr Plaza, D.V.G Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-. . Appellant Pan No.Aaefg3522F. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1), Bangalore. . Respondent * Appellant By : Shri K.R Pradeep, C.A Assessee By : Shri M.K Biju, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-03-2017

234D. IT(TP)A No.1439/B/10 3 9. 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.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business activity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

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

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

234D of the Act. Penalty 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Ld. AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

234D of the Act. Penalty 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Ld. AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

234D of the Act. Penalty 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Ld. AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

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

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

234D of the Act. Penalty 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Ld. AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays

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

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

234D is against the express provisions of the law. 20. 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.” For Asst. Year 2009-10 1. That the order of the authorities below

SMT. KARISHMA SHARMA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kit(It)A No.99/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Ms.Karishma Sharma The Income Tax Officer, Kailash Building No.21 International Taxation V. Ward 2(1), Bangalore. Kodichikkanahalli Main Road Kaveri Nagar, Bommanahalli Bangalore – 560 068. Pan : Balps6030E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ravi Shankar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 O R D E R This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 29.11.2021. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether Cash Deposit Of Rs.14.41 Lakh Can Be Considered As Unexplained?

property, was accurate and hence no inference could have been made that the cash was not arising out of the sale of the capital asset, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A of the Act were not attracted, since the source of the cash deposited

PRADEEP KAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Geoergeassessment Year : 2006-07

234D of the Act. 8. 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.” 2. Ground Nos.1 to 5 relate to nature of capital gain accrued to the assessee on sale of flat acquired from

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

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 142 (2) along with notice under section 142 (1) and questionnaire was issued to assessee. As the case

TESCO HINDUSTAN SERVICE CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

house R&D centre expenditure at Hyderabad under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act.” • As per the Notes to Accounts - Schedule 15, under “Deferred Revenue Expenditure” (page 31 of PB-II), it is mentioned that, “Expenditure incurred on research and development of new products has been treated as deferred revenue expenditure and the same has been written