ARUN KUDUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan S. & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 80C, and also loss relating to income from house property. 4. The learned CIT-A on perusal of the rectification

VISHNUMPET SUNDARESAN VENKATESH,BENGALURU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ACIT CIRCLE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2007-08 Shri. Vishnumpet Sundaresan Venkatesh, Vs. Acit, 42, Prestige Woodside, Circle – 6(1), Off Doddaballapur Main Road, Bengaluru. Avalahalli, Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aajpv 5556 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Venkatesh Sundaresan, Assessee Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2023

section 80C of the Act and loss incurred under the head ‘income from house property’. It was submitted that the above

K.V. SUBRAMANYAM vs. ITO,

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri K.V.Subramaniam, No.15, Sai Smaran Apartments, 17Th Cross, 35 A Main, Jp Nagar Vi Phase, Bangalore-560078. … Appellant Pa No.Aqgps 0686 J Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 15(2) Bangalore. … Respondent

section 80C(5)(iii) a & b house property loss when evidence is statement of housing loan from M/s. Citybank NA produced

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 80C of the Act towards repayment of housing loan and an amount of Rs.1,50,000 towards interest on housing loan under the head ‘income from house property

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

80C to 80U would be available to the assessee. Therefore section 80A provides the section in which deduction would be available. Section 80A does not determine the quantification of the said deduction. However, the Supreme Court was concerned with determining the quantification of deduction for the purpose of which section 80A is not relevant. Therefore, the appellant submits that

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

80C to 80U would be available to the assessee. Therefore section 80A provides the section in which deduction would be available. Section 80A does not determine the quantification of the said deduction. However, the Supreme Court was concerned with determining the quantification of deduction for the purpose of which section 80A is not relevant. Therefore, the appellant submits that

SYEDA BIBI SADIQA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

Section 54 as determined by the learned CIT Appeal needs to be corrected as under: The total sale proceeds of the apartments is 3,86,00,000 less: Cost of the new asset being 19,53,60,000. The deduction is restricted to the Sale Proceeds i.e 3,86,00,000. 3. The Learned CIT (A) had a misplaced idea

SRI. SANJAY RAMPRAKASH SAXENA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Sanjay Ramprakash Saxena, Dcit, G1, Smr Devmuk Cpc, Sy. No.97/104, 9Th Main, Vs. Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Vijaya Bank Layout, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aozps 7209 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bharath Shetty, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023

house property of Rs.15,165/- meaning thereby the gross total income declared by the assessee of Rs.16,22,880/- and claimed the deduction under chapter VI A of Rs.1 lakh under section 80C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHICKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (3), BENGALURU vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTHA, CHICKAMANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANATH , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

KEMPAPURA SRINIVASAREDDY UDAY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeykempapura Srinivasareddy Uday Dcit, Central Circle-2(2) Bengaluru 328, B Block Aces Layout Kundalahalli Vs. Bangalore 560037 Pan – Actpu3804H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Satish M., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

section 80C of the Act to the extent of Rs. 150,000/-; 8. Based on the above, the Learned AO has erred in law and in fact in raising demand by levying interest u.s 234A/234B of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual deriving income under the head ‘income from house

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

80C to 80U would be available to the assessee. Therefore section 80A provides the section in which deduction would be available. Section 80A does not determine the quantification of the said deduction. However, the Supreme Court was concerned with determining the quantification of deduction for the purpose of which section 80A is not relevant. Therefore, the appellant submits that

KANTILAL JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

house property and income from other sources. 4.2 The A,O., CPC, Bangalore processed the return on 21.05.2018 and communicated to the appellant about an error, being inconsistency between income from other sources in the return of income and in Form 26AS amounting to Rs. 9,66,006. This difference was computed based on income offered under the head income

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

80C of the Act. Thereafter, the AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act, after noticing that the assessee’s income liable to tax had escaped assessment as the assessee had not declared income on sale of sites, on the aforesaid land at Mathod Village, Shivamogga, during the year under consideration and issued notice under section

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

80C of the Act. Thereafter, the AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act, after noticing that the assessee’s income liable to tax had escaped assessment as the assessee had not declared income on sale of sites, on the aforesaid land at Mathod Village, Shivamogga, during the year under consideration and issued notice under section