M/S. PUTTUR CITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,PUTTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, (i) ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 142A shall apply in respect of an assessment made on or before the 30th day of September, 2004, and where such assessment has become final and conclusive on or before that date. The requirement that finding that the books of accounts maintained by the Assessee is not correct and the value estimated by the AO varies substantially from

M/S. PUTTUR CITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,PUTTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, (i) ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 142A shall apply in respect of an assessment made on or before the 30th day of September, 2004, and where such assessment has become final and conclusive on or before that date. The requirement that finding that the books of accounts maintained by the Assessee is not correct and the value estimated by the AO varies substantially from

M/S SPARSH DIMENSIONS ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), HUBLI

In the result, appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed while other appeals for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

68 of the Act are partly allowed in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and dismissed in Assessment Year 2013-14. 13. The next issue raised in Assessment Year 2013-14 in ground No. 4 challenging an addition of Rs.1,03,000/- as unproved liability was not pressed for adjudication and hence dismissed as not pressed. 14. The next

M/S SPARSH DIMENSIONS ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), HUBLI

In the result, appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed while other appeals for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

68 of the Act are partly allowed in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and dismissed in Assessment Year 2013-14. 13. The next issue raised in Assessment Year 2013-14 in ground No. 4 challenging an addition of Rs.1,03,000/- as unproved liability was not pressed for adjudication and hence dismissed as not pressed. 14. The next

M/S SPARSH DIMENSIONS ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), HUBLI

In the result, appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed while other appeals for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

68 of the Act are partly allowed in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and dismissed in Assessment Year 2013-14. 13. The next issue raised in Assessment Year 2013-14 in ground No. 4 challenging an addition of Rs.1,03,000/- as unproved liability was not pressed for adjudication and hence dismissed as not pressed. 14. The next

SHRI. SOMASHEKAR VENKATASWAMAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2014-15 Shri Somashekar Venkataswamappa, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Arehalli Village, Uttarahalli Post, Income Tax, Subramanyapura Post, Circle – 3(2)(1), Bangalore-560 061. Bangalore. Pan : Acvpv 7051 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. :

section 142A. The Valuation Officer having got a letter 13.12.2016 from the Assessing Officer had time up to 30.6.2017 to send the report. The period of six months odd taken by the Valuation Officer could have been excluded for the purpose of completion of assessment. The Assessing Officer, on the contrary, rushed through the assessment on 27.12.2016 without waiting

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

68 taxmann.com 368 (SC) and in case of\nShri Anil Minda vs. CIT reported in 148 taxmann.com 407. In those\ncases, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the limitation\nperiod for completing a block assessment under the then section 158BE\n(which is in pari materia with section 153B of the Act) must be reckoned\nfrom

BASHIR AHMED ABDURRAHMAN MATTE,BELAGAVI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,608. Subsequently, the revision proceedings were initiated under section 263 by the Pr.CIT, Belagavi in regard to cost of construction and examination of capital introduction. Consequent to directions of the Pr.CIT in his order under section 263 setting aside the above issues, the AO made reference to the Valuation Officer on 04.05.2017. Since no report estimating cost

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

68 taxmann.com 368 (SC) and in case of\nShri Anil Minda vs. CIT reported in 148 taxmann.com 407. In those\ncases, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the limitation\nperiod for completing a block assessment under the then section 158BE\n(which is in pari materia with section 153B of the Act) must be reckoned\nfrom

MS. PUSPHA RAO PAMIDI,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahums. Pushpa Rao Pamidi Vs Dcit, Circle - 2(1) No. 156/1, C/O T. Viswanath & Co Bengaluru Sharada Mansion, 2Nd Floor R V Road, V V Puram Bengaluru 560004 Pan – Bhhpp1695K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sathish S., Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.07.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit We Find That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Cannot Be Attributed To Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay Of Four Days & Proceed To Dispose Of The Case On Merits.

68,000 (as per assessee’s calculation Less: Indexed cost of improvement / 65,17,732 construction Long term capital gains 4,19,14,268 Less: deduction u/s. 54EC of Act 50,00,000 Less: declared by the assessee in the return 2,63,88,480 of income Addition proposed 1,05,25,788 7. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

142A reference to DVO is valid 9.1 The directions of Hon'ble High Court were also considered in the present order u/s 143(3) rws 263 rws 260 (1A) by the AO in the present order under appeal. It is observed by the AO that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has upheld the validity of valuation report

APURVA SARIN,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

68,850 as per the valuation report dated 27.07.2020 issued by the\nDistrict valuation officer in respect of the Property No.D-1032 New Friends\nColony, New Delhi.\n6. That both the learned CIT(A) and Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the real\nstate of affairs of the real estate market at the time of transfer, being\ndemonetization and the defaults committed