SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

RAKESH GANAPATHY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act\nwas issued to the assessee on 30.6.2022 by the ld. JCIT Range-4(3),\nBangalore after a gap of more than 3 years. On going through the\nsubmissions made before the authorities below, we find that the\nassessee along with others has sold an ancestral property\n(agricultural property) situated at Plot No.135/5, Kodagu

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

274\nBalance to be paid to Share holders 10,81,48,726\nGM Ungaraju\n21-01-2017 1,00,00,000\n15-03-2017 1,00,00,000\n18-05-2017\n8,00,000\n05-06-2017\nNo. of Amount to be Excess paid\nShares\npaid\n(Rs)\nfor payment\ nito unsecured\nloan\n1,08,00,000\nrefunded

SHIBANEE AND KAMAL ARCHITECTS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shibanee & Kamal Architects, The Assistant 78 Imagine, Itpl Main Commissioner Of Road, Income Tax, Epip Zone, Whitefield, Circle – 2(3)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aaafe3633P Appellant Respondent : Mrs. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 02/08/2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("Cit(A)") Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer ("Ao") Without Considering The Submissions Filed By The Appellant & Thus, The Order Passed Is In Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Has Failed To Participate In The Appeal Proceedings When In Fact, The Appellant Has Filed Its Detailed Replies To The Notices Issued By The Ao/Cit(A).

house property of Rs. 10,61,221/- under Section 24 of the Act. 7. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- under Section 40A(2) of the Act as being excess payment of salary. 8. That the AO/CIT(A) erred

BANGALORE HOUSING DEV AND INV, ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

274 for under reporting of income. Since the assessee had claimed the rental income under the head income from house property when the same is to be taxed under the head profits and gains of business or profession, it was contended that it would not fall under the provision 270A of the Act and could not be treated as under

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

housing projects or a\nship in Nava Sheva. Ownership of a ship per se will not attract Section 80-/B (6). It\nis the profits arising from the business of a ship which attracts sub-section (6). In\nother words, deduction under sub-section (6) at the specified rate has linkage to the\nprofits derived from the shipping operations. This

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

housing projects or a ship in Nava Sheva. Ownership of a ship per se will not attract Section 80-/B (6). It is the profits arising from the business of a ship which attracts sub-section (6). In other words, deduction under sub-section (6) at the specified rate has linkage to the profits derived from the shipping operations. This

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

housing projects or a ship in Nava Sheva. Ownership of a ship per se will not attract Section 80-/B (6). It is the profits arising from the business of a ship which attracts sub-section (6). In other words, deduction under sub-section (6) at the specified rate has linkage to the profits derived from the shipping operations. This

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property belongs to Sh. C.T.Ravi, however the construction was done by the assessee company. 10. In response to the notice u/s. 153C of the Act the Assessee Company filed his returns & assessments duly completed thereafter with the following additions being made to the Income Returned for the impugned assessment years: ITA Nos.299 to 301/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 42 Details

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property belongs to Sh. C.T.Ravi, however the construction was done by the assessee company. 10. In response to the notice u/s. 153C of the Act the Assessee Company filed his returns & assessments duly completed thereafter with the following additions being made to the Income Returned for the impugned assessment years: ITA Nos.299 to 301/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 42 Details

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property belongs to Sh. C.T.Ravi, however the construction was done by the assessee company. 10. In response to the notice u/s. 153C of the Act the Assessee Company filed his returns & assessments duly completed thereafter with the following additions being made to the Income Returned for the impugned assessment years: ITA Nos.299 to 301/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 42 Details

SEKHON JAGTAR SINGH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2017-18

housing loan, which was added to the total income of the assessee. As such, the income was determined in the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act at Rs. 58,70,680/- only. As the assessee did not file original return of income, the AO initiated penalty proceedings for underreporting of income, which came to be confirmed

BHAVANISHANKER NAIK,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act on 12.5.2023. This was complied with by the assessee on 10.6.2023. Further a show cause notice was issued on Page 4 of 14 12.9.2023 which was complied with on 19.9.2023 and 13.11.2023. The main reason provided by the assessee was that assessee has received a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from Mr. Prakash Jogi, buyer

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

274 CTR 122), wherein held as follows:- “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

274 CTR 122), wherein held as follows:- “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

274 CTR 122), wherein held as follows:- “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens