HONNAPPA MUNIVENKATAREDDY ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Honnappa Munivenkatareddy, #316, Overhead Tank Road, The Income Tax Officer, Chickballapur H.O, Chickballapur, Ward-2(1)(1), Vs. Karnataka – 562 101. Bengaluru. Pan: Aoxpm0334G Appellant Respondent

house property on 18.01.2018 at a total consideration of Rs. 23,55,875/- and therefore his total capital gain was nil. 9. The information was received by the Ld. Assessing Officer that Assessee has sold an immovable property for Rs. 50,81,338/- and Assessee is an individual and is non-filer did not file his return of income

M/S. SMB CONSTRUCTIONS ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

house property, being rent received from M/s.Alvas Education Foundation, Mangalore. As per the ITS data available with the 3 M/s.SMB Constructions. Department, the assessee is in respect of rent u/s.194-I(b) of the Act, amounting to Rs.53,82,000 received from M/s.Alvas Education Foundation, Mangalore, who has deducted TDS of Rs.5,38,200 u/s.194-I(b) and it was reported

SRI BANKAPUR CHANNABASAPPA UMAPATHI ,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property and other sources, the gross total income was shown as Nil and the balance business loss of Rs.89,02,037/- was carried forward to the subsequent assessment year. Further, as there was no income from capital gains and speculation profits for the current year, the short- term capital loss of Rs.18,15,348/- and speculation business loss

SRI BANKAPUR CHANNABASAPPA UMAPATHI ,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property and other sources, the gross total income was shown as Nil and the balance business loss of Rs.89,02,037/- was carried forward to the subsequent assessment year. Further, as there was no income from capital gains and speculation profits for the current year, the short- term capital loss of Rs.18,15,348/- and speculation business loss

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

house properties were already in the file or that the decision subsequently come across by him was already there would not affect the position because the information that such facts or decision existed comes to him only much later. What then, is the difference between the situations envisaged in propositions (2) and (4) of Kalyanji Maviji's case

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are\npartly allowed and ITA No

House Property and Other Sources. Such\nincome was the same as that which was declared in the original return of income\nfiled u/s 139 of the Act on 13.09.2014 and revised return of income filed on\n26.09.2016. During the course of search proceedings at the residence of\nShri K M Deekshith at the office of M/s Coffee Day Global Limited

MANJU ANAND LEGAL HIER OF MS. LALITHA NARAYANAN,KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year:2015-16 Ms. Manju Anand, Legal Heir Of Ms. Lalitha Narayanan, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No. B 102, Anand Valmark, Ward 4(3)(1), Vs. Kammanahalli Main Road, Bangalore Begur Hubli, Bangalore - 560076 Pan: Acppn8767N Appellant Respondent

house property. The Assessing Officer was intimated that on 15.01.2015, the Assessee,late Smt. Lalitha Narayanan has passed away, and Smt. Manju Anand is the legal heir of the Assessee. On verification of the documents, the Ld. Assessing Officer determining the long term capital gain on sale consideration of the property at Rs. 1,02,50,000/- representing the cost

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

House Property and Other Sources. Such income was the same as that which was declared in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on 13.09.2014 and revised return of income filed on 26.09.2016. During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri K M Deekshith at the office of M/s Coffee Day Global Limited

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

House Property and Other Sources. Such income was the same as that which was declared in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on 13.09.2014 and revised return of income filed on 26.09.2016. During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri K M Deekshith at the office of M/s Coffee Day Global Limited

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

House Property and Other Sources. Such income was the same as that which was declared in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on 13.09.2014 and revised return of income filed on 26.09.2016. During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri K M Deekshith at the office of M/s Coffee Day Global Limited

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

House Property and Other Sources. Such income was the same as that which was declared in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on 13.09.2014 and revised return of income filed on 26.09.2016. During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri K M Deekshith at the office of M/s Coffee Day Global Limited

SASIHITHLU VENKATESHI SRILAKSHMIPRASAD ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, we restore the whole issue back to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Sasihithlu Venkateshi Srilakshmiprasad, No. 412, 1St Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Veeneshamanna Road, Ward 1(1), Vs. Fortmohalla Agrahara, Mysore. Mysore – 570 004. Pan: Gpxps4397C Appellant Respondent

Reassessment Order dated 21.03.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act,1961 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (the Ld. Assessing Officer)was dismissed for the reason that the delay in filing of the Appeal after 119 days was not Page 2 of 7 considered by the Ld. CIT(A) as for sufficient cause. Thus

SMT. SREENIVASA UMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) was made on 26.3.2022. 2.1 The assessee challenged the said order before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 140 days. The assessee also enclosed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and explained the extraordinary circumstances under which

SMT. SREENIVASA UMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) was made on 26.3.2022. 2.1 The assessee challenged the said order before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 140 days. The assessee also enclosed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and explained the extraordinary circumstances under which

SMT. SREENIVASA UMA ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) was made on 26.3.2022. 2.1 The assessee challenged the said order before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 140 days. The assessee also enclosed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and explained the extraordinary circumstances under which

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 capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to ₹ 8,792,715. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return on 6 June 2018 declaring

GUTHU RITHESH RAI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2014-15

house property in the name of his wife for which an allotment letter was found that shows the agreed consideration of ₹ 2,761,300/– however the document value was found to be ₹ 1,782,891/–. 3. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an individual who did not file the return of income for the impugned assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) rws 147 of Page 2 of 8 the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 7.2.2013 by the JCIT, LTU, Bangalore , was partly allowed. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

ESSAE SUHAGRAJA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment order being inconsistent with the concluded position on the same matter is bad law hence the denial of deduction as made/confirmed is to be allowed. 3.2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessing officer himself having concluded, in the assessment order for AY 20-21, that the cost of TDR is allowable