DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

section 263 of the income tax act, it was determined at ₹ 131,358,751/– . The only addition that has been made by the learned assessing officer is income from house property of ₹ 100,251

TIRUPATHI ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

house property only. Therefore there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee. Page 5 of 6 8. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. We find that the learned CIT–A has issued first notice in 2022. The second notice was issued on 2 May 2024 where the assessee

SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

house property - Rs.1,65,426/- Income from business or profession - 86,68,09,207/- Income from capital gains - Rs.66,32,560/- Income from other sources - Rs.20,90,900/- 4. Accordingly the total income was determined at Rs.87,56,98,093/-. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who after calling

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

251{l)(o) of the Act, in appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but there is no such power provided by the law that Id. CIT(A) could change the provision of law qua the item of which assessment was made. Therefore, in the absence of such power, learned CIT(Appeals

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

house property of Rs.4,97,000 and income from other sources at Rs.1,56,504/-, the total income was determined at Rs.6,34,43,904/-. 8. Against all these four assessment orders, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) in terms of amendment to section 251

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

house property of Rs.4,97,000 and income from other sources at Rs.1,56,504/-, the total income was determined at Rs.6,34,43,904/-. 8. Against all these four assessment orders, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) in terms of amendment to section 251

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

house property of Rs.4,97,000 and income from other sources at Rs.1,56,504/-, the total income was determined at Rs.6,34,43,904/-. 8. Against all these four assessment orders, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) in terms of amendment to section 251

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

house property of Rs.4,97,000 and income from other sources at Rs.1,56,504/-, the total income was determined at Rs.6,34,43,904/-. 8. Against all these four assessment orders, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) in terms of amendment to section 251

SRI. VENKATESWARA DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Section 24(b) and Explanation to 24(b) against property income allowed by the Assessing authority in the • original assessment order passed u/s 143(3). • The CIT(A) remarks that 'the appellant has not used the loan amount from Citi Bank in construction of the project' is without any basis and thereby concluding the appellate order by enhancing the appellant

SRI VENKATESWARA DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Section 24(b) and Explanation to 24(b) against property income allowed by the Assessing authority in the • original assessment order passed u/s 143(3). • The CIT(A) remarks that 'the appellant has not used the loan amount from Citi Bank in construction of the project' is without any basis and thereby concluding the appellate order by enhancing the appellant

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

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

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 4 of the Act, which is not the intention of the legislature. Dismissing this appeal on account of delay, would deprive the justice by not giving the assessee the refund that it deserves and therefore it was pleaded that the Tribunal may take a lenient view and condone the delay. It was further submitted that the assessee

MAHESH RAM VITTAL,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

251 of the Act, by directing the learned AO to decide the issues in appeal. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned AO/CIT(A) has erred in levying interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

property rights which are not goods. 'vase of any other service being rendered the same falls directly under the ambit of the term services and hence it does not meet its own definition of production. The definition provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the assessee for the term "Things" would also show that a total intangible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

property rights which are not goods. 'vase of any other service being rendered the same falls directly under the ambit of the term services and hence it does not meet its own definition of production. The definition provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the assessee for the term "Things" would also show that a total intangible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

HOUSE PROPERTY 7986790 8716072 9586870 9676227 PGBP 269570718 1237670552 493696985 325550587 STCG 136372 222312 655065 10021 CAPITAL GAIN 12563022 IOS 101974790 51714335 152804718 57852150 TOTAL INCOME 367996150 1286588270 669502500 387279160 RETURN FILED ON139(1) 29.09.2013 28.0902014 30.09.2015 17.10.2016 143 (1) 31.10.2014 1,20,62,015 17.01.2017 80602017 143(3) ( RETURNED INCOME ACCEPTED 29.03.2016 29.12.2016 153C NOTICE

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

HOUSE PROPERTY 7986790 8716072 9586870 9676227 PGBP 269570718 1237670552 493696985 325550587 STCG 136372 222312 655065 10021 CAPITAL GAIN 12563022 IOS 101974790 51714335 152804718 57852150 TOTAL INCOME 367996150 1286588270 669502500 387279160 RETURN FILED ON139(1) 29.09.2013 28.0902014 30.09.2015 17.10.2016 143 (1) 31.10.2014 1,20,62,015 17.01.2017 80602017 143(3) ( RETURNED INCOME ACCEPTED 29.03.2016 29.12.2016 153C NOTICE

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

HOUSE PROPERTY 7986790 8716072 9586870 9676227 PGBP 269570718 1237670552 493696985 325550587 STCG 136372 222312 655065 10021 CAPITAL GAIN 12563022 IOS 101974790 51714335 152804718 57852150 TOTAL INCOME 367996150 1286588270 669502500 387279160 RETURN FILED ON139(1) 29.09.2013 28.0902014 30.09.2015 17.10.2016 143 (1) 31.10.2014 1,20,62,015 17.01.2017 80602017 143(3) ( RETURNED INCOME ACCEPTED 29.03.2016 29.12.2016 153C NOTICE