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

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

KARNATAKA AGROCHEMICAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

Housing Development Co. v. Addl. CIT reported in [2010] 001 ITR (Trib) 0165 • CIT v. Balaji Traders reported in 303 ITR 312 (Mad) • OMEC Engineers v. CIT reported in 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) • CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., reported in 285 ITR 221 (Mad) • Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A B Shanthi reported

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on the part

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para 7 of the assessment order, wherein during the course of search operation one agreement of sale entered between assessee and Shri R. Sundar

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para 7 of the assessment order, wherein during the course of search operation one agreement of sale entered between assessee and Shri R. Sundar

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para 7 of the assessment order, wherein during the course of search operation one agreement of sale entered between assessee and Shri R. Sundar

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para 7 of the assessment order, wherein during the course of search operation one agreement of sale entered between assessee and Shri R. Sundar

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para 7 of the assessment order, wherein during the course of search operation one agreement of sale entered between assessee and Shri R. Sundar

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para 7 of the assessment order, wherein during the course of search operation one agreement of sale entered between assessee and Shri R. Sundar

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

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 paid) and the same is reflected in 26AS statement. 2.4 The Return of income filed by the Assessee for the year under consideration processed u/s.143

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