POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

house property, capital gain and other sources. She filed return of income on 10 January 2018 declaring total taxable income of Rs.1,17,85,570/–. In the return of income the assessee has disclosed short-term

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, the annual value of the properties must be determined and brought to tax.It is an undisputed fact that the assessee wanted to sell these two villas and he had entered into an agreement for sale and for this reason he kept the property vacant. We are of the considered opinion that for the application of section

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, the annual value of the properties must be determined and brought to tax.It is an undisputed fact that the assessee wanted to sell these two villas and he had entered into an agreement for sale and for this reason he kept the property vacant. We are of the considered opinion that for the application of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

short term capital gain of Rs. 29,76,76,017/-.” 7. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 the cases of the assessee were assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the department treated the gain under similar facts as long term capital gain. Therefore, in view of the principle of consistency

M/S. ANUPAM RANJAN (HUF),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

short-term capital gain as the gain arised consequent to the assessee entered into JDA with M/s. Ashiana Marketing & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. on 11.1.2007. It was the contention of the assessee’s counsel that on commencing from the date of transfer of the land to the developer and ending on the date when the assessee sold its share of flats

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

house without outsourcing the construction activity / work. The assessee also submitted that expenses of Rs. 44,17,542.00 incurred are nearly 9 to 10 years old and that the expenses incurred in 2000-2001 cannot be taken as income of the year under assessment i.e. 2005-06. The assessee submitted the details of expenses incurred as given in the table

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

house without outsourcing the construction activity / work. The assessee also submitted that expenses of Rs. 44,17,542.00 incurred are nearly 9 to 10 years old and that the expenses incurred in 2000-2001 cannot be taken as income of the year under assessment i.e. 2005-06. The assessee submitted the details of expenses incurred as given in the table

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

house without outsourcing the construction activity / work. The assessee also submitted that expenses of Rs. 44,17,542.00 incurred are nearly 9 to 10 years old and that the expenses incurred in 2000-2001 cannot be taken as income of the year under assessment i.e. 2005-06. The assessee submitted the details of expenses incurred as given in the table

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

house without outsourcing the construction activity / work. The assessee also submitted that expenses of Rs. 44,17,542.00 incurred are nearly 9 to 10 years old and that the expenses incurred in 2000-2001 cannot be taken as income of the year under assessment i.e. 2005-06. The assessee submitted the details of expenses incurred as given in the table

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

house without outsourcing the construction activity / work. The assessee also submitted that expenses of Rs. 44,17,542.00 incurred are nearly 9 to 10 years old and that the expenses incurred in 2000-2001 cannot be taken as income of the year under assessment i.e. 2005-06. The assessee submitted the details of expenses incurred as given in the table

SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

house property, income from capital gains and income from other sources, claimed exemption u/s 54EC, deductions under chapter VIA, filed the return of income for year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.1,24,27,840/-. 2.2 The assessee being an employee of MNC, was granted 1,00,000 stock options by its US parent company by name Virident Systems

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property of Rs.72,996/-, Short term capital gains of Rs.5,32,549/- and Income from Other sources of Rs.33

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property of Rs.72,996/-, Short term capital gains of Rs.5,32,549/- and Income from Other sources of Rs.33

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property of Rs.72,996/-, Short term capital gains of Rs.5,32,549/- and Income from Other sources of Rs.33

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

House,\nChennai - 600 017.\nPAN : ANOPS 2178 Q\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nAssessee by\nShri. V. Sridhar, CA\nRevenue by\nShri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore.\nDate of hearing\n29.10.2025\nDate of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025\nORDER\nPer Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :\nThis is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order passed by the\nlearned CIT(A) 2, Panaji, vide

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

house the procedural failure of not depositing the unused Long Term Capital Gains of Rs 32,70,369/- in a separate account called Capital Gains Account Scheme Account in terms of Section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, may please be pardoned and the Appellant be granted deduction of the whole of the Long Term Capital Gains

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

House or term owning and Assessment Date of Short Property SI. profession capital maintaining year filing term No. Loss loss loss race horses (DD/MM/Y capital

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

term capital gain as offered by the appellant is to be accepted. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A 8. and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 9. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that