DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 54 of the Act 77,14,409/- 17, The Learned CIT(A) erred in failing to direct the Assessing Officer to give credit for the sum of Rs.77,14,409/- out of the sum of Rs.79,73,867/- being the Prepaid Taxes for A.Y.2015-16 when the AO has brought to tax the Long-Term Capital A.Y.2014-15 which is Gains

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

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

77,850/- 3. Anand 2,44,800/- 10,40,400/- 10,40,400/- Thus the total expenditure claimed to have incurred tiLL31.03.2006 is Rs. 7,66,26,200. As per the Ledger account the expenditure was Rs. 7,69,53,250. The assessee was not in a position to explain the difference of Rs. 3,27,050. Subsequent to survey

PADMANABAN SUKHUMARAN ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee towards the interest claimed u/s

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

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

PREMA KUMARI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, capital gain and from other sources. She also claimed gross agricultural income of Rs. 1,14,61,407/- on account of supply of cattle feed and grass to the M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park. As such, the assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park for supply of food grains, pulses, and feeds

PREMA KUMARI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, capital gain and from other sources. She also claimed gross agricultural income of Rs. 1,14,61,407/- on account of supply of cattle feed and grass to the M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park. As such, the assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s Bannerghatta Biological Park for supply of food grains, pulses, and feeds

SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD MIKKLINENI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

77,117/-. 3. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee contended that he has not handed over the possession of the property as per the joint development agreement and hence the decision rendered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the case of Dr. T.K. Dayalu (supra) will not apply to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) did not agree

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-10(2), BANGALORE vs. SMT. Y MANJULA REDDY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 54F of the Act in the light of law laid down by Delhi High Court in ‘CIT Vs. GITA DUGGA’, (2013) 257 CTR (DEL.) 208. The Tribunal has failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in her appeal. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed. The matter

Y. MANJULA REDDY vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 54F of the Act in the light of law laid down by Delhi High Court in ‘CIT Vs. GITA DUGGA’, (2013) 257 CTR (DEL.) 208. The Tribunal has failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in her appeal. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed. The matter

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)

house property, income from construction business, income from contract work and income from travel business. The AO also treated the cash credits as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. The AO estimated the income of hotel business by taking the profit at 20%. The AO also relied on the show notice issued by the DRI and made

ITO, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. SAHAKARA NAGAR CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

house property. The AO held that the assessee cannot be allowed to compute income as per section 22 of the Act. As such the AO held the receipt covered under section 80P(2)(c) of the Act and accordingly after providing deduction of Rs. 50000/- brought balance amount of Rs. 60,000/- to tax. Accordingly, the AO in view

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 145 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('ITA') it is the choice of the taxpayer to follow any of the two recognized method of accounting and once the choice is made by the taxpayer of a system that is recognized by ICAI or by taxpayer of same class, taxpayer cannot be taken away from that class just

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 145 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('ITA') it is the choice of the taxpayer to follow any of the two recognized method of accounting and once the choice is made by the taxpayer of a system that is recognized by ICAI or by taxpayer of same class, taxpayer cannot be taken away from that class just