AZIM HASHAM PREMJI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 23(1)(c) would apply to the facts of the present case and prayed to allow the appeals. 6. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee. Page 4 of 6 ITA Nos. 1322 & 1323/Bang/2025 7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused

AZIM HASHAM PREMJI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 23(1)(c) would apply to the facts of the present case and prayed to allow the appeals. 6. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee. Page 4 of 6 ITA Nos. 1322 & 1323/Bang/2025 7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused

VINAY KONCHADY SHENOY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

House Page 3 of 6 property and other sources and also claimed loss from Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property to the extent of Rs.1,44,253/- 2.3 During the year, the assessee had sold residential property to the extent of Rs.77,50,000/- on 20.04.2019. Accordingly, the purchaser deducted TDS of Rs. 77,500/- (percentage on consideration

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 8.16 In light of the above decision, it is the rightful owner

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 8.16 In light of the above decision, it is the rightful owner

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 8.16 In light of the above decision, it is the rightful owner

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 8.16 In light of the above decision, it is the rightful owner

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 8.16 In light of the above decision, it is the rightful owner

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

253. He submitted that however the judgment is related to section 151 of the Act but as per section 282A of the Act, the AO has to sign each and every notices/order/document. He also referred to para Nos.10, 13, 16, 18, 20, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the said judgment. He also referred to judgment of the jurisdictional High

GURU PAVAN RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property, business and other sources. The facts of the case that the assessees are one of the promoter shareholders of M/s. Rangsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as “REPL”] holding about 2,66,565, and 5,05,670 equity shares in the said company. 4. During the financial year relevant to the earlier assessment year

ANIRUDH MURTHY RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property, business and other sources. The facts of the case that the assessees are one of the promoter shareholders of M/s. Rangsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as “REPL”] holding about 2,66,565, and 5,05,670 equity shares in the said company. 4. During the financial year relevant to the earlier assessment year

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI RATHAN BABULAL LATH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

House Vs. CIT reported in 404 ITR 91, wherein held as follows:- “(i) That the decision of this court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy (supra), which allowed the Appellate Authority to go into the question of validity of search is a subject-matter of pending appeal before the Supreme Court and therefore, not only the Authorities

NANJAPPA UMASHANKER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

house that was proposed to be constructed by the assessee on the land at K. Narayanpura, Bengaluru acquired by him and in respect of which, bills relevant to the subsequent construction expenses incurred were produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The Learned Commissioner himself has conceded in paragraph 5.2.3 of the impugned order that he is inclined