GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of [one year before or two years A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek after the date on which the transfer took place purchased], or has within a period of three years after that date [constructed, one residential house in India], then

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

property and allowed indexed cost of acquisition and deduction under section 54B, but disallowed deduction under section 54F for not depositing sale proceeds in CGAS.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F, as the investment was made within the stipulated period for construction of a residential house, and Section 54F(4

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

House, First Cross Central Circle-1 Vs. N.G. Road, Attavar Mangaluru Mangaluru 575 001 Karnataka PAN NO : AAGCM8310E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are for the assessment years

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

houses of the managing\ndirector and other directors. In such a case, when the\nmanaging director or any other persons were found to be not\nin possession of any incriminating material, the question of\nexamining them by the authorised officer during the course of\nsearch and recording any statement from them by invoking the\npowers under section 132(4

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

houses of the managing\ndirector and other directors. In such a case, when the\nmanaging director or any other persons were found to be not\nin possession of any incriminating material, the question of\nexamining them by the authorised officer during the course of\nsearch and recording any statement from them by invoking the\npowers under section 132(4

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

45,10,00,000.00 21,61,83,000.00 Dr\nRUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST\nDivywane Crawnews, yr 11\nОбичаирлеaly Road\nDar 2\nLand Advance\n121 16 31 23\nParebeulars\nO Snyainaraj Land Advance 2\nLAM COREUkans\nКаппа Paddy La\nLand Advances in Raju\nLand Advance-Linersh & Raju SV Ne 27\nLand & land advanc\nL&Lard Advance Pruthvi BYN 35/2\nLand & Land

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

45,40,68,935/-in its books and made t\nentries clamming that land bearing Sy. No. 116 and 27 were its assets, without transferrinį.\nKhata No. and titles. The said entry did not result in actual transfer and shall only be character\nas an internal adjustment.\n3.14 Therefore, from the above discussion, it is noticed that the Trust

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

property. Assessee has not\nexplained source of cash paid. Accordingly, cash component of\nRs.47,65,000/- was treated as unexplained income under section 69 of the\nAct. In this regard, assessee filed detailed written submissions and the\nlearned CIT(A) has given telescoping benefit over and above.\n27.\nUnaccounted cash seized of Rs.65,96,000/- (Assessment Year\n2018-19)\nFurther

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

45,10,00,000.00 21,61,83,000.00 Dr\n3.1.9 During the search proceedings u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 at the residence of Mrs. Bharathi S., some incriminating documents\nwere found and seized as Annexure BS/132/03. Page no. 03 of the\nseized documents No. BS/132/03 is reproduced hereunder: -\nPage 31 of 81\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

house, cash payment\nto Chetan Gopal and Nirmala, assessee raised alternative grounds before the\nlearned CIT(A) towards allowing telescoping from the undisclosed income\nfound during the course of search and seizure as per return filed under section\n153A of the Act in which income is declared. Here in the case on hand,\nassessee has declared the amount

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

4 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 5 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 6 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 7 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 8 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 9 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 10 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 11 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI vs. SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN KALBURGI, HUBBALLI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for both the\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page

house property and income from other sources as\nwell as exempt income under section 10(2A) of the Act. Being a partnership firm,\nassessee filed original written of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19\nelectronically on 26.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.35,33,480/- and the\nsame was processed under section

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

45; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be reduced by the amount of the capital gain: Provided that……….” On reading of the above section would make it explicitly

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

45 as a result of the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act, ought to have been brought to tax as deemed "Capital Gains" only after the expiry of 3 years where the appellant had not constructed / purchased any residential house as per the conditions of Section 54F of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

4. ACIT, Circle (1)(1), Goa V/s Girish L Ragha,ITAN 0.116/P NJ / 2014- ITAT Panaji Order Dated 8th August 2014Varun Seth, New Delhi V/s ACIT, Circle 47(1), 5. ITA No. 1388/Del/2019ITAT, Delhi "F" Bench Order Dated 14th May 2019 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that before

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

4 years prior to the transfer of original asset and that the assessee constructed the residential house on the same property which is valued at Rs.3,12,13,249/-, the Capital gain was restricted to Rs.14,90,260/-. 9. In the present facts of the case, there is no dispute that assessee is the owner of the property, in respect

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024