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.

loss of Rs.44,91,482/- by allowing the\nassessee to set off against capital gain from acquisition of smartplay\nstartup by aricent and accordingly we set a-side the order of the AO\nbeing without jurisdiction & bad in law.\n9.12 As the additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed\nand accordingly other ground of appeal on merits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11)No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

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

reassessment proceedings are not for the benefit of the assessee. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision supra, the AO rejected the assessee's claim of business loss of Rs.1,03,41,582/-, short term capital loss of Rs.18,15,348/- and speculation business loss of Rs.41,061/- in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act to be set

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

reassessment proceedings are not for the benefit of the assessee. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision supra, the AO rejected the assessee's claim of business loss of Rs.1,03,41,582/-, short term capital loss of Rs.18,15,348/- and speculation business loss of Rs.41,061/- in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act to be set

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

loss, the\namount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as if it were the total\nincome;\n(c)in any other case, determined in accordance with the formula—(XY)\nwhere,\nX = the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as increased by the\ntotal income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside, as they adhere to the principles of section 159 and established jurisprudence. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record, and the relevant provisions of the Act. The issue before us is the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO in the joint names

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside, as they adhere to the principles of section 159 and established jurisprudence. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record, and the relevant provisions of the Act. The issue before us is the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO in the joint names

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside, as they adhere to the principles of section 159 and established jurisprudence. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record, and the relevant provisions of the Act. The issue before us is the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO in the joint names

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside, as they adhere to the principles of section 159 and established jurisprudence. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record, and the relevant provisions of the Act. The issue before us is the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO in the joint names

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside, as they adhere to the principles of section 159 and established jurisprudence. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record, and the relevant provisions of the Act. The issue before us is the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO in the joint names

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside, as they adhere to the principles of section 159 and established jurisprudence. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record, and the relevant provisions of the Act. The issue before us is the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO in the joint names

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside, as they adhere to the principles of section 159 and established jurisprudence. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record, and the relevant provisions of the Act. The issue before us is the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO in the joint names

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside, as they adhere to the principles of section 159 and established jurisprudence. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record, and the relevant provisions of the Act. The issue before us is the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO in the joint names

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside, as they adhere to the principles of section 159 and established jurisprudence. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record, and the relevant provisions of the Act. The issue before us is the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO in the joint names

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside, as they adhere to the principles of section 159 and established jurisprudence. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record, and the relevant provisions of the Act. The issue before us is the validity of the assessment order passed by the AO in the joint names

ASIAN EARTH MOVERS,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

setting off the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 7. The learned AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. 8. The learned AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. 9. The learned AO erred in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. Page

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

loss of Rs. 11,82,20,816/- after setting off short term capital gain income of Rs. 37,28,537/- on sale of sale of equity share / unit of equity oriented Mutual Fund under section 111A. 3.2 Subsequent to a survey conducted under section 133A, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated accordingly notice under section

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