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

property but income from profits and gains of business. It is submitted that merely because the TDS deduction u/s. 194I which is rental income from renting of trailers, which is business of the Assessee, it cannot be taxed as income from house

AZIM HASHAM PREMJI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

house property as per the Schedule TDS-2 which is higher than the receipts from the house property shown in ITR, sought

AZIM HASHAM PREMJI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

house property as per the Schedule TDS-2 which is higher than the receipts from the house property shown in ITR, sought

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

TDS of Rs. 27,78,701/- deducted by the employer company M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. Subsequently, statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished the reply. It was noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 24(b) of the IT Act and the interest from ICICI Bank

SRI SUBRAMANIAIYEAR KRISHNASWAMY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member Ita No.335(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Sri Subramaniaiyer Krishnaswamy No.39, Sastha Nivas, 2Nd Cross, Bimajyothi Lic Colony, West Of Chord Road, Bangalore -560 079 Pan No.Aaapk7348H Appellant The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Sukumar, Advocate Revenue By : Sri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit

house property as at 18/03/2015. ITA No.335(B)/20 4 9) The petitioner has paid Appeal fee of Rs.10,000/- 9) vide challan enclosed. For the detailed reasons mentioned above and which 10) are going to be urged at the time of hearing, this authority may be pleased to delete the impugned disallowance U/s — 54F in the interest of justice

SMT. SUBBALAKSHMI KURADA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

house property from her bank account on the following dates:- 08-02-2016 Reinvestment in new property 20,00,000 08-02-2016 “ “ “ “ 20,00,000 08-02-2016 “ “ “ “ “ 20,00,000 15-02-2016 Stamp duty, Transfer duty and fee 66,15,200 16.02.2016 Reinvestment in new property

SHARADAMBA ENTERPRISES,HUBLI vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Sharadama Enterprises, Station Road, Hubli. … Appellant Pan:Abofs 5233 J Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubli. … Respondent

house property’. The AO also disallowed bad debts written off of Rs.9,50,000/- and made a disallowance of labour payments of Rs.1,01,000/-. For non-deduction of tax at source disallowed a total sum of Rs.60,000/- on account of construction expenditure in the absence of proper vouchers. 3. Being aggrieved by this assessment order, an appeal

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

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

House property of (-) Rs. 1,55,000/-, which resulted in claiming of refund of Rs. 67,950/- out of TDS

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

House property of (-) Rs. 1,55,000/-, which resulted in claiming of refund of Rs. 67,950/- out of TDS

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

House property of (-) Rs. 1,55,000/-, which resulted in claiming of refund of Rs. 67,950/- out of TDS

M/S SCRIPS N SCROLL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

House Property’. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Mohan Kumar (HUF) (supra) and of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal of Sree Seshachala Builders Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra). In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that it is appropriate

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property and other sources and after claiming deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act disclosed taxable income of Rs. 24,55,060/- only. 26. The AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act assessing the total income at Rs. 24,79,352/- without allowing deduction as claimed and raised a demand of Rs. 9,85482/- consisting

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property and other sources and after claiming deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act disclosed taxable income of Rs. 24,55,060/- only. 26. The AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act assessing the total income at Rs. 24,79,352/- without allowing deduction as claimed and raised a demand of Rs. 9,85482/- consisting

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

TDS was deducted @ 10% as per provision of section 1941(b) however, the deductor inadvertently quoted the section as 1941(a). The Ld. NFAC erred in not considering the fact that the assessee failed to furnish copy of agreement or any other document to substantiate the property rented was house

TIRUPATHI ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

house property. Notices were issued to the assessee however the assessee remained non- compliant before the AO. The ld.AO noted that assessee has received gross receipt of Rs.1,14,01,374 which is subject to TDS

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

TDS-194IA(P) Payment of Arun 69,00,000 consideration for purchase of immovable properties AIR-002 Paid SBI cards 3,28,337 Rs.2,00,000 or and more against payment credit card services bills limited IT(IT)A No.193/Bang/2025 Arun Duraiswamy, Mysore Page 5 of 23 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was given sufficient opportunities