ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), before imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) does not spell out the exact charge against the assessee i.e., whether the assessee is guilty in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income. This ground was not specifically urged by the assessee before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA , DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), before imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) does not spell out the exact charge against the assessee i.e., whether the assessee is guilty in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income. This ground was not specifically urged by the assessee before

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

Section 54(2) declares that within one year from the date of transfer if the capital gain is not invested in purchase of building, he should deposit the amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme or else the assessee should invest the capital gains before filing of return within the permitted period under s. 139. In which event, the assessee

SMT.CHANDRAKALA SHASHIDAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

property within three years. In other words, in order to get the benefit u/s 54F of the I.T.Act, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house in all aspects and occupy it. It is enough if the assessee established that the investment of the entire net consideration was made within the stipulated period and the construction is mostly

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

274 CTR 122 and further being held by the High Court in the case of IBC knowledge Park (2016) 385 ITR 346. The same principle has been reiterated by Delhi High Court in the case of Anilkumar Bhatia (2013) 352 ITR 493. The same principle has been reiterated by various high courts including Kerala High Court in ST.Francis Clay Décor

SRI. RAGHUNATH H. BADDI,HUBLI vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.George

property was declared, the deduction was disallowed by the AO. The AO however allowed deduction of Rs.30,000/- out of the interest paid under the 1st proviso to Sec.24(b) of the Act as the residential house was vacant during the previous year and its annual value was nil. This resulted in an addition to the total income of Rs.22

SRI. NARASIMHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property. There was a search u/s 132 of the IT Act on 26/8/2008 in the case of the assessee. During the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized at his residential premises. Consequently proceedings u/s 153A of the Act were initiated. In the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

274 Balance to be paid to Share holders 10,81,48,726 GM Ungaraju 21-01-2017 1,00,00,000 15-03-2017 1,00,00,000 18-05-2017 8,00,000 05-06-2017 No. of Amount to be Excess paid Shares paid (Rs) for payment\ nito unsecured loan 1,08,00,000 refunded

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 4orallia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 8oIB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 45 [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward 5[1] 1Keval Construction

PUSHPALATHA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property was also included as violation of section 269SS of the Act. Accordingly, assessee was issued show cause notice under section 274 of the Act r.w.s. 271D of the Act on 11.01.2022. In response, assessee submitted as follows: “I pushpalatha, I have sold my house

SUBBALAKSHMI KURADA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 274 rws 271 of the Act is defective as the same has been issued for both concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and thus, the entire proceedings are bad in law and hence, the order passed deserves to be cancelled. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that

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