ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

251 CTR 317, had taken a view that under the provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition precedent was that the capital gain realized from sale of capital asset should have been parted by the assessee and invested in constructing a residential house. If the money is invested in constructing the residential house, merely because the construction

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

SRI. K. RAJANNA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.928/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sri K. Rajanna, Hoovadigara Beedhi, Hosuru Bagilu, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Dist. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.9.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore Dt.24.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 2.4.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.13,43,590 From Business & Long Term Capital Gains (‘Ltcg’). The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act'). The Assessing Officer Observed That On Verification Of The Return Of Income, It Was Seen That The Assessee Was In Receipt Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.3,38,00,000 From Sale Of 12 Flats Received From The Developer Consequent To A Joint Development Agreement (‘Jda’)

house and claimed exemption in this regard under Section 54 of the Act. 2.2 The Assessing Officer observed that in order to verify the claims of the assessee, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted on 20.1.2010, in the course of which it was found that the assessee has not made investments of the sale proceeds

M/S MYSORE INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

House Property’, and the balance under the head business. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in directing that the income be computed on the same lines as directed by Hon'ble Tribunal in its order in ITA No.1344 & 1345/Bang/2008 dt.23.6.2009 for the A.Ys 2004-05 & 2005-06. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) has failed to notice tht on giving effect

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 within the stipulated time for enabling deduction under section 5 4F of the Act. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in decision of CIT vs.Sambandam Udaykumar reported in 251 CTR 371 took the view that, under provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains realised from sale of capital asset should have been parted

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. M N SHESHAGIRI,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

251(1) of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to total income or Rs.38,22,410/- as against the returned income of Rs. 3,64,610/- on the facts

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

Housing, though the material found in the possession of the other person, the Assessing Officer was justified in considering the same in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Further the Act does not contemplate parallel proceedings under section 153A and 153C of the Act. The acceptance of the contention of the assessee would be contrary to the scheme

THE CHITRADURGA CITY MULTI PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY,CHITRADURGA vs. CIT, DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

property and rights of the company, also should be treated as a banking business. No doubt, it is true, as contended by Sri Sesachala that the businesses referred to in clauses (a) to (o) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Regulation Act cannot be treated as a banking business within the meaning of clause (b) of section

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

property or information used on services utilized for the purposes income was outside the purview and scope of Sec. 9(1)(vi) of the Act and consequently, not liable for TDS under Section 195 of the Act. 6.2.2 In support of the contention that royalty is chargeable to tax only on actual payments under the DTAA and hence liability

M/S ABHILASH SOFTWARE & DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazm/S.Abhilash Software & Development Centre, # 2/10, 80 Feet Road, Poojari Layout, Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan.Aaifm8040N Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Bangalore. … Respondent

house property’ and only such deductions as are allowable under such heads of income are to be allowed. Thus, it has resulted in enhancement of income and the CIT(A) ought to have issued show cause notice to the assessee prior to such enhancement of income u/s 251 of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that there is violation of principles

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, KALABURAGI vs. M/S. SAHAKARI SAKKARE KHARKHANE NIYAMITH, ALAND

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarthe Acit, Circle 1, Appellant Kalaburagi. Vs

section 1941 of the IT Act. 5. In the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in considering Rs. 15 crore as advance lease rent which was received in one go instead of Rs. 45.0471 crore without going into the fact whether Rs.15 crore received by the assessee is 'Income from Business & Profession

THIMMAREDDY KRISHNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2006-07

house property amounting to Rs.43,54,152 out of the total investment in residential property of Rs.65,00,000. 9. That the learned Commissioner has erred in directing the AO to levy tax and interest. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add to and/ or to alter, amend, rescind, modify, the grounds above produce further documents before

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

SRI.M N SHESHAGIRI ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2012-13

251(1) of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law,weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to total income of Rs.38,22,410/ - as against the returned income of Rs. 3,64,610/- on the facts

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