INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALLARI vs. BELLARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BALLARI

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

house property, business income and interest on FDS and other deposits under the income from other sources. Thereafter the case was selected for manual scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) were issued along with the questionnaire. The assessee filed the required documents along with the computation of statement of total income. Several other

SRI. NARASIMHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property. There was a search u/s 132 of the IT Act on 26/8/2008 in the case of the assessee. During the course of search proceedings, certain incriminating documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized at his residential premises. Consequently proceedings u/s 153A of the Act were initiated. In the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property and thereafter declared undisclosed income for AY 2013-14 of Rs.17,09,973. The details called for were not provided by the assessee within stipulated time. Accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee and in response the assessee did not file return of income. Notices u/s. 142(1) were issued on 12.11.2021, 16.12.2021 & 11.1.2021 for which

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property and thereafter declared undisclosed income for AY 2013-14 of Rs.17,09,973. The details called for were not provided by the assessee within stipulated time. Accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee and in response the assessee did not file return of income. Notices u/s. 142(1) were issued on 12.11.2021, 16.12.2021 & 11.1.2021 for which

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the AY 2014-15 by the AO by observing as follows: ITA Nos.207 to 209/Bang/2023 Sri Vinod Radhakrishna, Bengaluru Page 7 of 9 3.1 The ld. NFAC observed that the assessee has failed to prove his bona fides in so far as claiming bogus loss under the head House Property

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the AY 2014-15 by the AO by observing as follows: ITA Nos.207 to 209/Bang/2023 Sri Vinod Radhakrishna, Bengaluru Page 7 of 9 3.1 The ld. NFAC observed that the assessee has failed to prove his bona fides in so far as claiming bogus loss under the head House Property

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the AY 2014-15 by the AO by observing as follows: ITA Nos.207 to 209/Bang/2023 Sri Vinod Radhakrishna, Bengaluru Page 7 of 9 3.1 The ld. NFAC observed that the assessee has failed to prove his bona fides in so far as claiming bogus loss under the head House Property

SRI VENKATESWARA DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.7,98,35,033/-. Further, he observed that assessee claimed deduction of interest payment of Rs.5,56,18,114/- u/s 24(b) of the ITA No.1910 & 2474/Bang/2019 Sri Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore Page 8 of 11 Act and Rs.2

SRI. VENKATESWARA DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.7,98,35,033/-. Further, he observed that assessee claimed deduction of interest payment of Rs.5,56,18,114/- u/s 24(b) of the ITA No.1910 & 2474/Bang/2019 Sri Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore Page 8 of 11 Act and Rs.2

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

house property amounting to Rs. 9,65,520/-. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was initiated

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

house property amounting to Rs. 9,65,520/-. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was initiated

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

house property amounting to Rs. 9,65,520/-. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was initiated

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GHODAWAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Ghodawat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Embassy Point, 150, Infantry Road, Bangalore. … Respondent Aaccm6628B

house property. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005- 06, addition of Rs.1 crore was made on account of unexplained investment in the property. It was stated that the said property was purchased from M/s.Golf Link Software Park Pvt. Ltd., for a Page 3 of 5 total consideration of Rs.39 crores. The Assessing Officer made

M/S VANSHEE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty of Rs.28,63,812/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Ld. A.R. initially advanced his arguments on various legal grounds. On merits, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the profit before tax declared by the assessee in the profit & loss account placed at page 52 of the paper book was Rs.1,52,18,851/-. The above said