SRI. GANGASHARA SHETTY, ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

exemption of the entire long term capital gain (LTCG) u/s 54 of the Act as he has utilized the amount of gain in construction of one residential house. Thereafter, the reassessment

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

reassessment based on the same material is not permissible. d. The reference ought to have been made to DIT (Exemption

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

exempt income, no further disallowance by the Assessing Officer is warranted, following previous judgments of the High Court and Tribunal. The Tribunal also held that additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) is allowable for the process of converting raw coffee beans into liquid coffee, as it constitutes manufacturing. The reassessment

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

reassessment based on the\nsame material is not permissible.\nd. The reference ought to have been made to DIT\n(Exemption

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

reassessment based on the\nsame material is not permissible.\nd. The reference ought to have been made to DIT\n(Exemption

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

reassessment based on the\nsame material is not permissible.\nd. The reference ought to have been made to DIT\n(Exemption

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

exempt income is earned. Whether additional depreciation is allowable for the process of converting raw coffee beans into liquid coffee. The validity of reassessment

SHRUTHI KISHORE,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment be quashed, as it is impractical and unjustified b. Hold that the addition made by the Learned AO be dismissed summarily as untenable as the source of cash deposits are wedding gifts, which are exempt

KEMPAIAH NAGARAJ,BANGALORE vs. NA, NA

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

Reassessment Scheme 6. Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering the detailed responses and evidences filed before the Assessing Officer, justifying the claim of indexed costs of acquisition and improvement and exemption

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

Exemptions), Circle-1 is without jurisdiction and consequently subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction and bad in law. 5. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is defective and bad in law as the same does not strike off the relevant portion and whether the same is issued to assess or reassess

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

exemption under\nsection 10(38) qua long term capital gain ('LTCG') of Rs.\n22,55,37,300/- arising from sale of bonus shares. The Assessee\nwas issued a notice under section 148 of the Act by the learned\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) (“AO”) on\n31.03.2021 to reassess

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

exemption under\nsection 10(38) qua long term capital gain ('LTCG') of Rs.\n22,55,37,300/- arising from sale of bonus shares. The Assessee\nwas issued a notice under section 148 of the Act by the learned\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) (“AO”) on\n31.03.2021 to reassess

MAMATHA MAHESH SHETTY,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

exemption limit is contrary to law. Accordingly, on merits, we hold that the addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- made by treating agricultural income as income from other sources is not sustainable and is liable to be deleted. 16.6 Without prejudice to the above, it is a settled position of law that when reassessment

SHRI. POLLAMREDDY SREEDHAR REDDY,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

exempted in the hands of the assessee. The assessee has not made any disallowance towards the expenditure incurred with relation to investment in this firm and also there is no enquiry by the AO at the time of framing assessment. Pollam Reddy Shreedhar Reddy, Bangalore Page 6 of 16 These issues provoked the ld. Principal CIT to exercise jurisdiction

RAKSHIT KARNAWAT,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated Page 2 of 7 30.03.2022 by the National Faceless E-Assessment Centre, Delhi [ld. AO] was partly allowed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved and has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- “ 1. The appellate order u/s 250 of the Act of Commissioner

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

reassessment passed under\nclause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling\nwithin six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment\nyear relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under\nsection 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision\nhas also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under\nclause

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

reassessment intimation passed u/s 154 of the Act where in in intimation order under section 143 (1) of the income tax act 1961 dated 27 June 2023 passed by the central processing Centre, assesseee sought rectification for allowance of deduction u/s 80 P of the act despite filing Return of income beyond due date

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

reassessment intimation passed u/s 154 of the Act where in in intimation order under section 143 (1) of the income tax act 1961 dated 27 June 2023 passed by the central processing Centre, assesseee sought rectification for allowance of deduction u/s 80 P of the act despite filing Return of income beyond due date