ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

House property Rs.3,48,933 Income from Business Rs.3,12,000 Add: Income from Other sources Rs.5,35,221 Add: Unexplained cash credits in bank accounts Rs.1,12,02,680 Add: Unexplained capital accretion Rs.2,50,00,000 Rs.3,67,37,901 Rs.3,73,98,834 Gross total income 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed

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

269,31,41,150 under section 40(a)(i) for not deducting tax at source in respect of the said payments. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance under section 40(a)(i) should be deleted in entirety. Levy of interest under section 234B :- The learned CIT(A) has erred in 12. confirming the action

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

269,31,41,150 under section 40(a)(i) for not deducting tax at source in respect of the said payments. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance under section 40(a)(i) should be deleted in entirety. Levy of interest under section 234B :- The learned CIT(A) has erred in 12. confirming the action

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

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 45 of 78 arising out of such sales within the meaning of the definition of the term “capital asset”. Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain and claimed that it was agricultural land though it was converted into non-agricultural residential purpose, the case

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 45 of 78 arising out of such sales within the meaning of the definition of the term “capital asset”. Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain and claimed that it was agricultural land though it was converted into non-agricultural residential purpose, the case

ACIT, HUBLI vs. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI, HUBLI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.222, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Bhavani Arcade, Vs. Circle 1(1), Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Hubli. Hubli – 580 029. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent

property of Shri S.N. Hiremath for a sum of Rs. 5,07,269/-. He has referred to these bills at page 117 and 118 of the paper book. All thee three figures as recorded in the diary are in respect of the construction of the house and are overlapping in the diary and impounded material. The ld. AR has pointed

SRI. MALLANGOUDS SANKAGOUDASHANI,HUBLI vs. DCIT, HUBLI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.222, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Bhavani Arcade, Vs. Circle 1(1), Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Hubli. Hubli – 580 029. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent

property of Shri S.N. Hiremath for a sum of Rs. 5,07,269/-. He has referred to these bills at page 117 and 118 of the paper book. All thee three figures as recorded in the diary are in respect of the construction of the house and are overlapping in the diary and impounded material. The ld. AR has pointed

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property, conversion of the land from agricultural to non- agricultural residential purpose are briefly set out by the Assessing Officer in his order at pages 5 to 7. In the GPA executed by Narasimhaiah and Chikkaputtaiah, they stated that they are the owners of the land admeasuring 3 acres each and further stated that they had applied for conversion

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property, conversion of the land from agricultural to non- agricultural residential purpose are briefly set out by the Assessing Officer in his order at pages 5 to 7. In the GPA executed by Narasimhaiah and Chikkaputtaiah, they stated that they are the owners of the land admeasuring 3 acres each and further stated that they had applied for conversion

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property, conversion of the land from agricultural to non- agricultural residential purpose are briefly set out by the Assessing Officer in his order at pages 5 to 7. In the GPA executed by Narasimhaiah and Chikkaputtaiah, they stated that they are the owners of the land admeasuring 3 acres each and further stated that they had applied for conversion

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property, conversion of the land from agricultural to non- agricultural residential purpose are briefly set out by the Assessing Officer in his order at pages 5 to 7. In the GPA executed by Narasimhaiah and Chikkaputtaiah, they stated that they are the owners of the land admeasuring 3 acres each and further stated that they had applied for conversion

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

269 (Bangalore) dt.29.8.2008 and Assessment Year 2006-07 in ITA No.1355/Bang/2010 dt.11.10.2011. 7.4.2 It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that Revenue’s appeal against the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal for Assessment Year 2004-05 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court by order in ITA No.763 c/w 25/2009 dt.29.2.2012

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

section 133(6) from the Lokayukta by the AO and he observed that there is difference in the jewellery declared. Therefore, the information received from the Lokayukta is part and parcel of the incriminating documents found during the course of search. The assessee has not explained the apparent discrepancies in his own statements on affidavit before the statutory authorities

KUNIGAL THIBBAIAH SRINIVASA,KUNIGAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , TUMAKURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Kunigal Thibbaiah Srinivasa, Vs. Ito, Behind Shanthamma Temple, Ward – 2, Mahaveera Nagar, Tumkur Road, Tumakuru. Kunigal – 572 130. Pan : Ennps 4678 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 11.10.2022 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 81 Days In Filing This Appeal. In An Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal, It Has Been Stated That The First Appellate Authority Passed An Ex-Parte Order Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Not Educated. He Is Residing In Mofussil Areas I.E., Kunigal & Is Not Aware Of The Intricacies Of E-Tax Proceedings. He Therefore Did Not Respond To Notice Issued Nor Instructed His Tax Practitioner. The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Passing Of The Ex-Parte Order By The First Appellate Authority & Came To Know About The Same Only When He Received Notice For Recovery Of Outstanding Demand On 21.11.2022. It Has Also Been Submitted That The Page 2 Of 6

269 [SC]. The crux of the ratio laid down in these decisions is to the effect that procedural technicalities should not stand in the way of substantive justice, especially in tax proceedings and when there is no willful neglect on the part of the party seeking relief. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the plea as contained