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

House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H. Nagin Khincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R. Date of Hearing 04 07 2022 & 03 11 2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 11 2022 ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

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

House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H. Nagin Khincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R. Date of Hearing 04 07 2022 & 03 11 2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 11 2022 ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

section 132A of the Act.\n3. The AO noticed that cash of ₹16,95,100/- was seized during the\nsearch. In his statement u/s 131 of the Act, the assessee admitted that\nhe had been earning rental income of ₹50,000 to ₹55,000 per month for\nthe last 6-7 years. However, in the return filed u/s 153A

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 132A of the Act. ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 14 3. The AO noticed that cash of ₹16,95,100/- was seized during the search. In his statement u/s 131 of the Act, the assessee admitted that he had been earning rental income of ₹50,000 to ₹55,000 per month for the last 6–7 years. However

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALAORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 132A of the Act. ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 14 3. The AO noticed that cash of ₹16,95,100/- was seized during the search. In his statement u/s 131 of the Act, the assessee admitted that he had been earning rental income of ₹50,000 to ₹55,000 per month for the last 6–7 years. However

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 132A of the Act. ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 14 3. The AO noticed that cash of ₹16,95,100/- was seized during the search. In his statement u/s 131 of the Act, the assessee admitted that he had been earning rental income of ₹50,000 to ₹55,000 per month for the last 6–7 years. However

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 132A of the Act. ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 14 3. The AO noticed that cash of ₹16,95,100/- was seized during the search. In his statement u/s 131 of the Act, the assessee admitted that he had been earning rental income of ₹50,000 to ₹55,000 per month for the last 6–7 years. However

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 132A of the Act. ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 14 3. The AO noticed that cash of ₹16,95,100/- was seized during the search. In his statement u/s 131 of the Act, the assessee admitted that he had been earning rental income of ₹50,000 to ₹55,000 per month for the last 6–7 years. However

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 132A of the Act. ITA No.748 - 754/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 14 3. The AO noticed that cash of ₹16,95,100/- was seized during the search. In his statement u/s 131 of the Act, the assessee admitted that he had been earning rental income of ₹50,000 to ₹55,000 per month for the last 6–7 years. However

SMT.UMA NARENDRA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

Housing Pvt. Ltd. vide JDA executed on 28.02.2017. On the basis of this information, the AO has formed a belief that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. T.K. Dayalu, 202 Taxmann 531, capital gain has escaped assessment u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], hence

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

property in the hand of the transferor and it gets vested in the hand of transferee. Therefore, in the case of transfer the right or ownership of transferor is completely extinguished and it is vested with the transferee. In the case on hand, the assessee is vested with the right to use the patented technical know how / technology under

SRI. K. RAJANNA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.928/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sri K. Rajanna, Hoovadigara Beedhi, Hosuru Bagilu, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Dist. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.9.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore Dt.24.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 2.4.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.13,43,590 From Business & Long Term Capital Gains (‘Ltcg’). The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act'). The Assessing Officer Observed That On Verification Of The Return Of Income, It Was Seen That The Assessee Was In Receipt Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.3,38,00,000 From Sale Of 12 Flats Received From The Developer Consequent To A Joint Development Agreement (‘Jda’)

house and claimed exemption in this regard under Section 54 of the Act. 2.2 The Assessing Officer observed that in order to verify the claims of the assessee, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted on 20.1.2010, in the course of which it was found that the assessee has not made investments of the sale proceeds

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

property,\nprofits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other\nsources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or\nprofessions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of\nthe Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax\nunder this head. Thereafter, Section

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

house property), 28 (Profits and gains of business), 45 (Capital Gains) and 56 (Income from other sources). Even income arising from international transactions between AE must satisfy the test of income under the Act and must find its home in one of the above heads i.e., charging provisions.” Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the provisions of Chapter X cannot

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held as under:- ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 32 of 73 “Section 153A 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

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held as under:- ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 32 of 73 “Section 153A 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

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held as under:- ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 32 of 73 “Section 153A 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

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

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held as under:- ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 32 of 73 “Section 153A 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