DCIT, BANGALORE vs. DR. RAJAN PAI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. George George Ki.T.A No.1290/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. Dr. Rajan Pai, Block No.1B, Jakkur Plantation Village, Yelahanka Main Road, Bengaluru .. Respondent Pan : Agbpp2795G Assessee By : Shri. Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit -Iii Heard On : 12.04.2016 Pronounced On : 29.04.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

house. As per the AO, fair market value of the bonus shares issued by MEMG was required to be computed in accordance with Rule 11U and 11UA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’ in ITA.1290/Bang/2015 Page - 3 short). He applied Rule 11UA and determined the fair market value of the 1,00,00,000 number of bonus shares

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

x 12 = 1202328 cubic metres of earth. Since the entire land is of 12 acres & 9 guntas, when converted into yards it comes to 59169 yards. Further, on conversion into metres it comes to 49431 sq. Meters. As per the assessee's version from the depth the earth is filled which is at 1202328/49431 = 24.32 metres, which comes

M/S. GMR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2310/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Dy.Commissioner Of (Successor To Gmr Holdings P.Ltd) Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(2) V. Bangalore. No.25/1 Skip House, Museum Rd. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccr1554R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Yogesh Thar, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per Bench:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 14.10.20199 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds & Various Sub Grounds. The Assessee By Its Application Dated 13.07.2020 Has Also Raised An Additional Ground. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted That Grounds No.Ii & Iii May Be Adjudicated & The Other Grounds May Be Left Open. Therefore, Grounds No.Ii & Iii Are Reproduced Below:-

Housing Development Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT in Writ Petition (C) No.4554 of 2011, held that an error or omission can be rectified only filing a revised return within the prescribed time limit u/s 139(5) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, it was concluded by the DRP that the assessee is not entitled to raise such a claim before the Assessing Officer

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) Whether

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non- agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) Whether

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

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

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD vs. ADDL.DIT,

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

property by the Board is subject to the rules made by the State Government under the KHB Act [section 38]. 2.6 As per section 24 of KHB Act, the State Government can acquire land for the purpose of development, and pay compensation for such compulsory acquisition. The Board cannot decide what land to acquire and how much to compensate

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

property by the Board is subject to the rules made by the State Government under the KHB Act [section 38]. 2.6 As per section 24 of KHB Act, the State Government can acquire land for the purpose of development, and pay compensation for such compulsory acquisition. The Board cannot decide what land to acquire and how much to compensate

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 48, the language employed is unambiguous. The intention is very clear. When a capital asset is transferred, in order to determine the capital gain from such transfer, what is to be seen is, out of full value of the consideration received or accruing, the cost of acquisition of the asset, the cost of improvement and any expenditure wholly