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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee. 2. Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 120131 35 taxmann.com 456 (Pun jab &Haryana)/[2013] 216 Taxman 153 (Punjab&Haryana)(MAG.)/[20131 258 CTR 454 (Punjab & Haryana) where Hon'ble P&H High Court held that where amount surrendered during survey was not reflected in books

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee. 2. Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 120131 35 taxmann.com 456 (Pun jab &Haryana)/[2013] 216 Taxman 153 (Punjab&Haryana)(MAG.)/[20131 258 CTR 454 (Punjab & Haryana) where Hon'ble P&H High Court held that where amount surrendered during survey was not reflected in books

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee. 2. Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 120131 35 taxmann.com 456 (Pun jab &Haryana)/[2013] 216 Taxman 153 (Punjab&Haryana)(MAG.)/[20131 258 CTR 454 (Punjab & Haryana) where Hon'ble P&H High Court held that where amount surrendered during survey was not reflected in books

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

property was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. The agreement itself recorded that a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- was paid in cash on execution of the agreement. There is an endorsement in the agreement that a further sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- was paid in cash on 14th July

CHANDRA SHEKHAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)

properties as rented out, is not based on the facts and in fact against the department’s own search. In fact the assessing authority had deputed its 6 M/s. Kunnummakkara Service/Income Tax Officer, W(2)(2) officers to make a physical inspection of the houses but the officers in their report had not stated anything about the vacant houses

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House property during the year, the annual value of the property must be determined and brought to tax during the year. Further, the AO observed that the purchaser only agreed to purchase the property and ownership had not been transferred yet as the sale deed was not executed during the year. In view of the same, the notional rent

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House property during the year, the annual value of the property must be determined and brought to tax during the year. Further, the AO observed that the purchaser only agreed to purchase the property and ownership had not been transferred yet as the sale deed was not executed during the year. In view of the same, the notional rent

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

69 of the Act. The first condition being the assessee ought to have made an investment which is not recorded in the books of accounts, if any, maintained for any source of income. The second condition is that assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investment or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

69 of the Act. The first condition being the assessee ought to have made an investment which is not recorded in the books of accounts, if any, maintained for any source of income. The second condition is that assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investment or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory

PUTTEGOWDA RAVIKUMAR,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavputtegowda Ravikumar The Income Tax Officer-1(1) 201, Belvadi Post 21/16, 'Aayakar Bhavan' Vs. Koorgahaly, Mysore 570018 Residency Road, Nazarabad Pan – Aezpr9904H Mysore 570010 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tharun Kothari, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy S., A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2024 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Himself Liable To Be Assessed To A Total Income Of Rs.52,96,021/- For The Impugned Assessment Year 2018-19 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Raised A Defect For Delay In Filing The Appeal, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernable from the order and hence deserves

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

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

sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

69,386 square feet (50 % of 7,38,772 square\nfeet)\n9. The assessee executed power of attorney(POA) in favour of\nthe builder to obtain all clearances and other license i.e\nthe assessee has handover the complete possession of the\nland to the builder for future development.\n10. The construction was complete and completion certificate\nwas obtained in July

PUSHPALATHA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

69 & 70]\n15.\nIn the present case, there was no intention, whatsoever, to generate\nunaccounted money/black money as the assessee had recorded the receipt of entire\ncash in the registered sale deed and duly disclosed the same in the return of income\nfiled. Assessee had also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act towards\nconstruction of residential house

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

housing loan from HDFC Bank to the extent of Rs.55,00,000/-. The statement of HDFC Loan account was also submitted before the AO and as well as DRP. Further, with regard to balance of funding to the extent of Rs.14,00,000/- for the property, the assessee explained as below- 1. Rs.5,00,000/- was paid through vide

RAKESH GANAPATHY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

property whether or not the\ntransfer takes place.\nIt is further proposed to make consequential amendments in section 271D\nand section 271E to provide penalty for failure to comply with the amended\nprovisions of section 269SS and 269T, respectively.\nThese amendments will take effect from 1st day of June, 2015.\n[Clauses 66, 67, 69 & 70]\nPage