M/S. G CROP PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

374 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) where it has been held that maintenance charges would form part of the annual let out value of the property. c) The assessee is claiming an expenditure of Rs.3,44,17,926/- as interest against the house property income. However, it is observed that in Me initial period a loan was taken by the assessee

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

housed in sections 28 to 44DB. Under section 28(i) the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year is chargeable to tax. As per section 29, the income referred to in section 28 should be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections

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

housed in sections 28 to 44DB. Under section 28(i) the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year is chargeable to tax. As per section 29, the income referred to in section 28 should be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections

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

374 ITR 645 - Bombay HC 3) Jai Steel (India) vs ACIT - 259 CTR 281 - RAJASTHAN HC 4) PCIT vs Desai Construction Pvt Ltd - 387 ITR 552 - GUJ HC 5) CIT vs Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 573 - Delhi HC. Secondly, the AO made an addition of Rs.16,71,82,094 based on certain material seized from Bharat S Ghorpade and Dinesh

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. 2012-13 9,89,68,350/- 3. 2013-14 98,98,400 4. 2014-15 8,00,00,000/- 14. In response to notice issued, assessee filed its reply dated 23/03/2019, wherein it was submitted that, information about cheque and cash payment in purchase of properties were available before Ld.AO vide assessee’s letter dated 15/11/2006, and that such

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.

Properties Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 1714 to l 717/Bang/2013) CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573( Delhi) ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 73 16. The ld. AR further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Canara Housing Development Company Vs DCIT 274 CTR 122 (Karn) relied

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.

Properties Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 1714 to l 717/Bang/2013) CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573( Delhi) ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 73 16. The ld. AR further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Canara Housing Development Company Vs DCIT 274 CTR 122 (Karn) relied

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.

Properties Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 1714 to l 717/Bang/2013) CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573( Delhi) ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 73 16. The ld. AR further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Canara Housing Development Company Vs DCIT 274 CTR 122 (Karn) relied

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.

Properties Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 1714 to l 717/Bang/2013) CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573( Delhi) ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 73 16. The ld. AR further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Canara Housing Development Company Vs DCIT 274 CTR 122 (Karn) relied

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.

Properties Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 1714 to l 717/Bang/2013) CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573( Delhi) ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 73 16. The ld. AR further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Canara Housing Development Company Vs DCIT 274 CTR 122 (Karn) relied

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.

Properties Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 1714 to l 717/Bang/2013) CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573( Delhi) ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 73 16. The ld. AR further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Canara Housing Development Company Vs DCIT 274 CTR 122 (Karn) relied

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.

Properties Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 1714 to l 717/Bang/2013) CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573( Delhi) ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 73 16. The ld. AR further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Canara Housing Development Company Vs DCIT 274 CTR 122 (Karn) relied

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

2,01,556/- made in the assessment year 2018-19 being the alleged personal expenditure is unsustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.12. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

2,01,556/- made in the assessment year 2018-19 being the alleged personal expenditure is unsustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.12. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

2,01,556/- made in the assessment year 2018-19 being the alleged personal expenditure is unsustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.12. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

section\n24 of the Act.\nTax effect\nrelating to each\nGround of\nAppeal\n(Rs.)\nRs. 4,98,547/-\nRs. 84,96,160/-\nRs.1,61,266/-\nPage 3 of 11\nITA No. 849/Bang/2025\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of\nreal estate development, real estate project management, construction of\nretail

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

374 (P&H) 3. Kanniappan Murugadoss Vs. ITO (2017) 79 Taxmann.com 244 (Chennai- Trib) Alternatively, it was submitted that, in the event this Tribunal intends to admit additional evidences, the same may be remanded to Ld.AO for examination/verification. 2.3. We have perused arguments advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. We also refer to decisions relied

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

374 ITR 0645 (BOM)], an endeavor made by the Revenue contending that the ambit and scope of powers conferred on Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the Act was not properly appreciated in Murli Agro Products Ltd., and the same requires re-consideration was negated and the law laid down in Murli Agro Products Ltd., supra, was followed