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

M/S. ANUPAM RANJAN (HUF),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

section 54/54F ought to have been given to the appellant. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Rs.18,16,540/- learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the capital gain as offered by the Appellant and ought to have deleted the impugned additions. 6. Without prejudice, the impugned additions Rs.18,16,540/- confirmed

CHIGURUVADA DILEEP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property. Subsequently, the case was selected for a complete scrutiny for verification of the refund that disclosure of substantially lower receipts in the return vis-à-vis 26AS. On deduction from total Page 4 ITA Nos. 832/Bang/2023 & 143/Bang/2024 income under Chapter VIA, substantial difference in the total taxable income was also to be verified. 3.2 During the course

CHIGURUVADA DILEEPKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property. Subsequently, the case was selected for a complete scrutiny for verification of the refund that disclosure of substantially lower receipts in the return vis-à-vis 26AS. On deduction from total Page 4 ITA Nos. 832/Bang/2023 & 143/Bang/2024 income under Chapter VIA, substantial difference in the total taxable income was also to be verified. 3.2 During the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

house property, and the assessee has already declared such income and no separate addition is required. 8. The learned D.R., Shri Subramanian, appearing for the Revenue vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of deemed rental income from the flats owned by the assessee. The learned D.R. also contended that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144 of the Act after considering the documents/material available before him and computed the gross total income at Rs.3,73,98,834/- as under: - Income from House property Rs.3,48,933 Income from Business Rs.3,12,000 Add: Income from Other sources Rs.5,35,221 Add: Unexplained cash credits in bank accounts Rs.1,12,02,680 Add: Unexplained capital

M/S. PLAZA AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in substance and set aside to the file of AO for limited purpose of quantification of the amount of expenses and depreciation

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavplaza Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 5(1)(2) #41, Mantri House Bengaluru Vittal Mallya Road Vs. Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaccp0589Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. Present Assessee’S Appeal Is Arising From The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 08.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2004-25/1063981275(1).

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 having DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/2004-25/1063981275(1). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a private limited company, filed its return of income (ROI) for the impugned year on 07.11.2017 declaring income house property at Rs.1

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Co-operative Society (‘VBEHCS’). As a result, proceedings under section 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) were initiated in the Appellant’s case. 4. From the return of income, the AO noted that the Appellant has claimed the income arising from sale of agricultural lands as exempt. It was submitted that the agricultural lands are located

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Co-operative Society (‘VBEHCS’). As a result, proceedings under section 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) were initiated in the Appellant’s case. 4. From the return of income, the AO noted that the Appellant has claimed the income arising from sale of agricultural lands as exempt. It was submitted that the agricultural lands are located

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Co-operative Society (‘VBEHCS’). As a result, proceedings under section 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) were initiated in the Appellant’s case. 4. From the return of income, the AO noted that the Appellant has claimed the income arising from sale of agricultural lands as exempt. It was submitted that the agricultural lands are located

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Co-operative Society (‘VBEHCS’). As a result, proceedings under section 153C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) were initiated in the Appellant’s case. 4. From the return of income, the AO noted that the Appellant has claimed the income arising from sale of agricultural lands as exempt. It was submitted that the agricultural lands are located

HEMMANAHALLY SIDDACHARI NAGAMANI,MANDYA KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1 & TPS MANDYA, MANDYA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mrs. Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Near Sathygraha The Income Tax Soudha, Officer, B M Road, Ward – 1 & Tps, Shivapura Maddur, Mandya. Vs. Mandya Dt – 571 429. Pan: Abnpn7222R Appellant Respondent

249 belatedly. Page 2 of 6 3. The learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in passing the orders against the principles of natural justice. 4. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without jurisdiction. 5. In the absence of proper notice/order service

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

property (64,149.00) b) Income from Business 50,04,395.00 c) Income from other sources 38,58,473.00 ---------------- 87,98,719.00 Less: Deduction u/s. 80 C 1,50,000.00 80 TTA 10,000.00 80 IA 50,04,395.00 ---------------- 56,64,395.00 ---------------- 36,34,320.00 ========== Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 3 of 14 2.2. The book profit computed

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

property of assessee and Spreadtrum under the Settlement Agreement. This is clear from the term "Independently Owned IPR" as understood under the Settlement Agreement which means background IPR which in turn means that is owned or controlled by a party existing prior to the beginning of the joint development project or resulting from activities which are independent from and concurrent

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

property of assessee and Spreadtrum under the Settlement Agreement. This is clear from the term "Independently Owned IPR" as understood under the Settlement Agreement which means background IPR which in turn means that is owned or controlled by a party existing prior to the beginning of the joint development project or resulting from activities which are independent from and concurrent

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House [1986] 157 ITR 86 were under the Income Tax Act and the observations made and the test indicated therein were in the context of the wide definition of the word plant given in that Act and, therefore, not of universal application. Obviously, if plant is defined differently under a different provision or if the context so requires

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House [1986] 157 ITR 86 were under the Income Tax Act and the observations made and the test indicated therein were in the context of the wide definition of the word plant given in that Act and, therefore, not of universal application. Obviously, if plant is defined differently under a different provision or if the context so requires

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House [1986] 157 ITR 86 were under the Income Tax Act and the observations made and the test indicated therein were in the context of the wide definition of the word plant given in that Act and, therefore, not of universal application. Obviously, if plant is defined differently under a different provision or if the context so requires