HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

section 54 was allowed where the new residential property was purchased in the name of the wife of the assessee. (b) DIT, International Taxation v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide [2011] 15 taxmann.com 82/203 Taxman 208/[2012] 349 ITR 80 (Kar.) – The Tribunal has allowed exemption u/s 54 for investment in residential property by the assessee jointly with her husband

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income. Accordingly, ground no. 19 of the Assessee is allowed. 18. The Ground no. 20 of the Appeal is with respect to the correct carry forward of losses. The Assessee has computed the carry forward of the losses

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

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

House Property” was\nless than the rent shown in the rent agreement furnished by him. On\nbeing questioned, the assessee could not provide any satisfactory\nexplanation or reconciliation for the difference. The AO, therefore,\ncomputed the understatement of rental income at 89,840/- and added\nthe same to the total income.\n19. On appeal, the Id. CIT(A) upheld

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

89,840/- under the head “Income from House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALAORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

89,840/- under the head “Income from House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

89,840/- under the head “Income from House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

89,840/- under the head “Income from House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

89,840/- under the head “Income from House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

89,840/- under the head “Income from House Property” is accordingly sustained. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 23. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,06,200.00 as unexplained cash under section

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

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

89,677.00 Cost of registration of land on 24.02.2007 Rs.3.77,540.00 Other costs Rs.8,98,421.00 Total cost Rs.1,72,29,993.00 8. The A.O. examined the cost of purchase of property furnished to him and noticed that the assessee could not furnish evidence with regard to the expenses incurred on interiors, etc. Accordingly, the A.O. held that the cost

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

89,677.00 Cost of registration of land on 24.02.2007 Rs.3.77,540.00 Other costs Rs.8,98,421.00 Total cost Rs.1,72,29,993.00 8. The A.O. examined the cost of purchase of property furnished to him and noticed that the assessee could not furnish evidence with regard to the expenses incurred on interiors, etc. Accordingly, the A.O. held that the cost

CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

house], has to be complied as they cannot be overlooked. In future the Government may consider amending the Act and extending the timelines as laid down in Section 54F from the date of approval of Sanction Plan by the Govt. Agencies. Based on the above discussion of facts and circumstances, the ld CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the decision taken