SRI G MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri G. Muniraju, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S/O. Late Shri Chikkaveeraiah, Ward – 7[2][4], 7Th Floor, Bmtc Building, No.47, Uddanahalli Village, Tavarekere Village, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru South Taluk – 560 082. Bangalore – 560 095. Pan : Akapm 4763 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Lakshmi K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not changed under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may he, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI KUMAR SANJEEV RANJAN , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2013-14

46A of the Income Tax Rules,1962. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding the assessee was a Non-Resident during the year without offering any findings on applicability or other-wise of section 6 (1)(C) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order

SMT. TUPEL RAJA IYENGAR SHAKUNTHALA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Tupel Raja Iyengar Shakuntala, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer #25/4, Flat No.204, Ward-7(2)(4), Ff Mahaveer Aspen Apartments, Bangalore. 6Th Main Road, Yelachenahalli, K. P. Main Road, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan : Bfgps 4816 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 O R D E R

property sold by the appellant for which the reassessment proceedings were initiated and therefore, there was sufficient cause as well as inadequate opportunity in course of assessment proceedings and hence, the requirements of clause [c] and clause [d] of Rule 46A(1) were squarely attracted to the appellant's case and the rejection of the additional evidence tendered

SRI GOPAL BYRE GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P Boaz

house within the period specified under Section 139(4) of the Act, the benefit of Section 54F of the Act cannot be denied. In the case on hand, the original property was sold on 3.12.2012 for consideration of Rs.3.60 Crores and the new property was purchased on 1.7.2013 for an aggregate amount of Rs.4 Crores; i.e. with a period

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUNI REDDY SANTHOSH REDDY, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

house subsequently within 3 years as provided u/s. 54 of the Act, the same is eligible for deduction while computing the income from -capital gains in the case of the appellant and the AO is directed to allow the same while giving the appeal effect. 6.2.2 As regards the investment in the fourth property vide Deed No. 8531 dated 28/11/2015

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

SRI. KRISHNAPPA VINODKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 148 and 148A of the Act and consequently, the impugned order passed without a statutory provision in the statute on the date of passing the assessment order is a nullity. 3. Without prejudice to the above. the order of re- assessment is bad in law and void-ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction especially. the mandatory requirements

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

46A in section 10 and the consequential amendment made to the Explanation to the 19th proviso of clause 23C of section 10 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the amendments would take effect from 01/04/2024 and therefore the same would be applicable from the A.Y. 2024-25. The Ld.CIT(A), therefore confirmed the orders of the AO insofar

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

46A in section 10 and the consequential amendment made to the Explanation to the 19th proviso of clause 23C of section 10 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the amendments would take effect from 01/04/2024 and therefore the same would be applicable from the A.Y. 2024-25. The Ld.CIT(A), therefore confirmed the orders of the AO insofar

SYED MOHAMMED RIZWAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(8), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Syed Mohammed Rizwan Vs The Income Tax Officer-2(2)(8) No. 193, 1St Main Road Bmtc Depot Sheshadripuram Koramangala Bangalore 560020 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Afvpr3337R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-11, Bangalore Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A) 11, Bangalore Is Bad In Law & 'Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Assessment Order Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2.1 The Learned Ao Erred In Making The Addition Under Section 68 Amounting To Rs. 3,99,46,180, Rs. 33,69,742 & .The Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 24(B) Amounting To Rs. 2,00,000 In An Undue, Haste & Mechanical Manner Without Properly Considering The Details & Documents Filed During The Assessment. 2.2 The Learned Ao Erred In Passing The Assessment Order & Erred In Making The Impugned Additions Without Issuing Any Show Cause Notice

property at Rs.2,00,000/- and the AO called on the assessee to produce bank certificate in this regard. Since the assessee could not produce bank certificate, the AO disallowed the claim of interest under Section 24(b) of the Act. The AO concluded the assessment by making the above disallowances/additions. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before

JERRY MATHEW ELIAS KOVOOR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George Kit(It)A No.151/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Sri.Jerry Mathew Elias Kovoor The Income Tax Officer B-1100, Chartered Coronet Ward (International Taxation) V. 1(2), Bengaluru. Arakere, Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aeqpk8249F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2021

house property and not in respect of purchase of vacant site. It was further submitted that the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Addl.CIT v. K.S.Gupta reported in (1979) 119 ITR 372 (AP) had categorically held that land purchased with borrowed money and interest payment of such borrowals should be included in the cost of acquisition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE vs. SRI K MANJU , BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by revenue in these appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri K. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk1430E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sri L. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ahopm6734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

46A of the Income Tax Rules? 3. Any other grounds that may arise at the time of hearing.” 2. The both assessee are individual was subjected to provisions of section 153C consequent to a section that took place on 8/07/2011 on Basha group. During the course of search on Basha group, certain documents belonging to K. Manju were found. Subsequently

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE vs. SRI L MANJU , BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by revenue in these appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri K. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk1430E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. L. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ahopm6734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

46A of the Income Tax Rules? 3. Any other grounds that may arise at the time of hearing.” 2. The both assessee are individual was subjected to provisions of section 153C consequent to a section that took place on 8/07/2011 on Basha group. During the course of search on Basha group, certain documents belonging to K. Manju were found. Subsequently

GANGADHARAPPA MUNINDRA KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

46A of the Income- tax Rules, 1962 as the conditions specified under the Rule are not satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law by invoking the rigorous provisions of section 69A of the Act where the source of income is business income rendering section 69A inapplicable

HOSKOTE CHIKKEGOWDA MADEGOWDA ,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

46A of the IT Rules,1962 without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in producing the said additional evidence before the Assessing Officer under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4.1 The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the cash deposits made are from known and explainable sources of funds

SHRI. CHANNAKESHAVA Y S (HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

house property and also interest income during the year. 2. The Assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2012- 13, declaring total income of Rs.23,50,027/- on 04/10/2012 and subsequently the assessee filed revised return and declared Rs.21,76,730/- on 18/11/2012. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued and details

ITO vs. M/S SHALOM SANKALP VENTURES,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan

46A(iii) without providing opportunity to the AO. 6.The CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s. 8018 overlooking provision of section 8018(10)(d) as per which built up area for shops and commercial establishments should not exceed 5% of aggregate built up area or 2000 Sq feet whichever is less. 7. The CIT(A) failed to note that

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

house the procedural failure of not depositing the unused Long Term Capital Gains of Rs 32,70,369/- in a separate account called Capital Gains Account Scheme Account in terms of Section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, may please be pardoned and the Appellant be granted deduction of the whole of the Long Term Capital Gains