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

NISHA VIJAY ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

302/- by adding Rs. 84,57,947/- under head capital gains. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C (13) of the Act dated 22.01.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has also filed statement of facts, grounds of appeal along with the written submissions. 6. We have heard

VIJAY LAKHMICHAND ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

302/- by adding Rs. 84,57,947/- under head capital gains. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C (13) of the Act dated 22.01.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has also filed statement of facts, grounds of appeal along with the written submissions. 6. We have heard

M/S. S I MEDIA LLP, ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

302, Brigade Lavelle, Income Tax, Lavelle Road, Circle – 1[1][1], Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. PAN – ACWFS 9656 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 07.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee

SRI PAUL CHRISTADAS SALINS ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

house property was declared at (-) Rs. 1,26,000/- after claiming standard deduction u/s. 24a and interest u/s. 24b of Rs. 48,000/- and Rs. 2,38,000/- respectively. He submitted that in that year, there was no scrutiny and hence, return filed by the assessee was accepted by the department. He submitted that under these facts

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

M/S CHITRAKALA INVESTMENT TRADE & BUSINESS FINANCE LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

302 ITR 126). The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Rai Bhadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamraia (supra) is extracted below: ITA Nos.1322 to 1324/Bang/2012 Page 8 of 14 "The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this court is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction, under section

M/S SEA ROCK INVESTMENTS LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

302 ITR 126). The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Rai Bhadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamraia (supra) is extracted below: ITA Nos.1322 to 1324/Bang/2012 Page 8 of 14 "The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this court is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction, under section

M/S MANGALA INVESTMENTS LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

302 ITR 126). The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Rai Bhadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamraia (supra) is extracted below: ITA Nos.1322 to 1324/Bang/2012 Page 8 of 14 "The principle that emerges as a result of the authorities of this court is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction, under section

ESTATE OF LATE DR. S. ZAKAULLA MASOOD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2010-11

property and claimed exemption u/s 54F. However, as even after the expiry of 3 years of the date of transfer, the construction of the house was not complete and sale deed not executed, the AO & CIT (A) denied relief u/s 54F though the Tribunal granted it. On appeal by the department to the High Court, it was held that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI vs. SHRI. SRIPAL DEVICHAND JAIN, KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and CO by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

house property and other sources. 7. During the impugned assessment year, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Division, Davangere had intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. KA-39/P-8055 at Jagalur bus stand, Davangere on 05.02.2021 and on inspection of the vehicle they found that three persons were carrying cash of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- from Gulbarga to Davangere

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

302 this Tribunal has already held the payments made by assessee to Google Ireland cannot be considered to be Royalty as per para 39 of the said order. The same view has been taken by another decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of assessee in ITA No. 1190/Bang/2014 for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 by order

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

302 this Tribunal has already held the payments made by assessee to Google Ireland cannot be considered to be Royalty as per para 39 of the said order. The same view has been taken by another decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of assessee in ITA No. 1190/Bang/2014 for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 by order

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

302 this Tribunal has already held the payments made by assessee to Google Ireland cannot be considered to be Royalty as per para 39 of the said order. The same view has been taken by another decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of assessee in ITA No. 1190/Bang/2014 for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 by order

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

302 this Tribunal has already held the payments made by assessee to Google Ireland cannot be considered to be Royalty as per para 39 of the said order. The same view has been taken by another decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of assessee in ITA No. 1190/Bang/2014 for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 by order