ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

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

50C of the Income Tax Act\n1961 had resulted in subjecting a “hypothetical income”\nto tax which is not permissible under law and which\nmandates at only the “real income” can be subjected to\ntaxation under the Income Tax Act 1961.\n4.2.3 In support of our above submission the appellant rely upon\nthe following decisions and the ratios of which

GANGADHARAYYA G NARENDRAMATH ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

reassessment was made to make addition under section 50C in respect of the stamp duty value being higher than the sale

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

reassessment proceedings were deemed void-ab-initio.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["148", "147", "143(3)", "143(2)", "50C", "139(9)", "276CC

SMT. ARIFA YASMEEN REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MRS. FARHAT ALAM ARA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

section 50C of the I.T.Act for calculating capital gains. Further, the A.O. noticed that the 3 ITA No.155/Bang/2020. Smt.Arifa yasmeen. impugned property was purchased by the late father of the assessee on 11.10.2014 for a consideration of Rs.5,84,000 including stamp duty and registration charges. As the property was held less than three years, the A.O. computed short term

CONFIDENT PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

reassessment could be done. The returns filed under Section 139 of the Act gets replaced by the returns filed under Section 153A[1] of the Act. Pending proceedings in appeal, revision/application shall not abate subsequent to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. Further, recording of satisfaction under Section 153A may not be necessary unlike Section 153C of the Act which mandates

CONFIDENT PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

reassessment could be done. The returns filed under Section 139 of the Act gets replaced by the returns filed under Section 153A[1] of the Act. Pending proceedings in appeal, revision/application shall not abate subsequent to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. Further, recording of satisfaction under Section 153A may not be necessary unlike Section 153C of the Act which mandates

SRI S.R. RAVISHANKAR,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2011-12 Shri.S. R. Ravishankar, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax No.80, 1St Main, Between 3Rd & 4Th (Central), Cross, Chamrajpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 018. Pan : Aclpr 5363 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 O R D E R

reassessment could be done. The returns filed under Section 139 of the Act gets replaced by the returns filed under Section 153A[1] of the Act. Pending proceedings in appeal, revision/application shall not abate subsequent to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. Further, recording of satisfaction under Section 153A may not be necessary unlike Section 153C of the Act which mandates

SRI.VENKATARAMANAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

50C is not applicable to the facts of the case as the land sold is not a capital asset but agricultural land on the facts of the case. d) Without prejudice the authorities below ought to have referred to the valuation officer to determine the full value of consideration as per Section 50 of the Act on the facts

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:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

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:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

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:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

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:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous

SMT. M.H. MAMATHA, L/R OF LATE SRI. M.N. HARINATH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. M. H. Mamatha Legal Heir Of Income Tax Officer, Late Shri. M. N. Harinath, Ward – 3[2][2], No.947, 37Th Cross, Poornaprajna Vs. Bengaluru. Layout, Uttarhalli, Bsk 5Th Stage, Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Aeipm 2644 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : .08.2020

50C of the Act thereof on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Without further prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the impugned land sold by the Appellant is an agricultural land and not exigible to tax as per the provisions of section

SRI.LAKSHMANA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Lakshmana, Vs. Ito, S/O. Late Chikkathimmaiah, Ward – 3(2)(3), Kanminike Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South Taluk Bengaluru – 560 039. Pan : Apppl 7076 K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.12.2017 Of Cit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal. We Deem It Appropriate To Take Up For Consideration The Issue With Regard To The Validity Of The Order Of Reassessment Passed In This Case On The Ground That The Ao Has Not Disposed Off The Objections With Regard To Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) & The Action Of The Ao In This Regard Is Allegedly Contrary To The Law Laid Down By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gkn Page 2 Of 7

reassessment passed in this case on the ground that the AO has not disposed off the objections with regard to validity of reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and the action of the AO in this regard is allegedly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

M/S FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

reassessment under s. 147 (b) may be made out. Avoidance of tax liability by so arranging commercial affairs that charge of tax is distributed is not prohibited. A taxpayer may resort to a device to divert the income before it accrues or arises to him. Effectiveness of the device depends not upon considerations of morality, but on the operation

SHRI. S K RAMPRASAD,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)5, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. S. K. Ramprasad, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax No.83, Ramson Building, (Appeals-5), 7Th Floor, Bmtc Building, 80 Silver Jubilee Park Road, Bangalore-560 002. Feet Road, Koramangala, Pan : Aanpr 1165 L Bangalore -560 095. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

50C of the Act. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by CIT(A)-5, Bangalore, vide order dated 28.09.2017. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-5, Bangalore, dated 28.09.2017 for Assessment Year 2008-09, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal, wherein he has raised the following grounds and additional grounds: Page 3 of 12 Page

A.KRISHNAPPA (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri A. Krishnappa (Huf), By Kartha Dr. Srinivas, No. 1025/13, 11Th Main Road, The Income Tax Officer, Rpc Layout, Vs. Ward – 3 (2) (2), Vijayanagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 040. Pan: Aabha1818F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2019

reassessment, the consequential order becomes bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3.1 Without prejudice, the Assessing Officer had erred in concluding that a) The appellant had sold / transferred the land during the previous Page 2 of 8 year relevant to year under appeal. b) That the appellant is liable to pay tax on capital gains on transfer