M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

property in the goods transferred from the buyer to the seller for a price and further the seller retains no effective control of the goods so transferred. In present facts, iron ore stood transferred to the buyers as on the date of sale through E auction by MC. We note that assessee was aware about the amount to be received

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. G. R. DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K Garodiashri Laliet Kumarg.R Developers, 142-143, 1St Floor, Gr Plaza, D.V.G Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-. . Appellant Pan No.Aaefg3522F. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1), Bangalore. . Respondent * Appellant By : Shri K.R Pradeep, C.A Assessee By : Shri M.K Biju, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-03-2017

5 provider’. 'In short S.P. The S.P. have to construct the club house and provide other facilities at, their cost and run and maintain the same after admitting as members. The individual plot owners and others from the general public, can use the facility after paying the respective fees and charges to the Club as per applicable Rules

MR.ZAMIR MIRZA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazshri Zamir Mirza, Flat No.4A, Iv Floor, Mayfair Apartments No.31, Berlie Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Acapm2850L. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1(1), Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.Y Ningoji Rao, C.A Respondent By : Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -10-2017 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz:

section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.98/B/17 4 4. The facts contained in the accompanying application made u/s 253 (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 2.2 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. Taking into

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