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

SHASHIDHAR PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Shashidhar Patil, The Income Tax “Pratham” 508, 3Rd Block, Officer, 15Th Main, Koramangala, Vs. Ward – 6 (2) (1), Bangalore – 560 034. Bangalore. Pan: Acjpp2694Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M. Rajasekhar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019

249/- being the loss from the house property." The AO in vide para 9 of the assessment order had rightly disallowed the loss claimed by the assessee as the assessee had not offered any notional income from let-out property which was vacant. Accordingly, I agree with the AO's observation and the assessee is not entitled to claim loss

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

M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Sections 4, 14,18,19,20 and 22 of the Partnership Act. The payment of damages has been made during the course of business and to protect its goodwill by doing so the assessee has maintained its goodwill that it honours and maintains commitment in the property related matter which spill over several years and therefore inspires and enhance

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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

249 2004-05 409 2,21,18,288 Total 5,42,36,338 6. The CIT(A) held that as per the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust (No.1) v. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 1005, the fair rent of the property would be Rs.46,10,080 per annum being 8.5% of the total investment

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

property (607290 + 22709) 6,29,999 Long term capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account 2,00,000 ------------ 46,48,288 ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 25 ------------ 27. The only ground which is pressed before us is ground No.6(a) which reads as under:- “The learned assessing officer has erred in holding that

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

property (607290 + 22709) 6,29,999 Long term capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account 2,00,000 ------------ 46,48,288 ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 25 ------------ 27. The only ground which is pressed before us is ground No.6(a) which reads as under:- “The learned assessing officer has erred in holding that

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

property (607290 + 22709) 6,29,999 Long term capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account 2,00,000 ------------ 46,48,288 ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 25 ------------ 27. The only ground which is pressed before us is ground No.6(a) which reads as under:- “The learned assessing officer has erred in holding that

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

property (607290 + 22709) 6,29,999 Long term capital gain 24,68,950 Unexplained cash credit in capital account 2,00,000 ------------ 46,48,288 ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 25 ------------ 27. The only ground which is pressed before us is ground No.6(a) which reads as under:- “The learned assessing officer has erred in holding that

SHRI. DEV KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2016-17

249 Taxable Capital gain 35,00,000 1,16,160 8. According to the AO, the Assessee did not acquire the undivided share of land or the built up area and therefore there was no capital asset that was transferred by the Assessee and hence the gain in question cannot be considered as chargeable to tax u/s.45 of the Income

SMT.SUSHILA DEVI MALU ,KALABURAGI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 , KALABURAGI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2013-14

house property and income from business. For the AY 2013-14, she filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,68,93,667. An order of assessment dated 28.12.2016 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] determining the total income of assessee at Rs.2,69,27,824. Aggrieved by the additions made

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. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

house property), 28 (Profits and gains of business), 45 (Capital Gains) and 56 (Income from other sources). Even income arising from international transactions between AE must satisfy the test of income under the Act and must find its home in one of the above heads i.e., charging provisions.” Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the provisions of Chapter X cannot

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