SHRI H B SUDARSHAN ,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,725/-, which is not exigible top income-tax under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellants case. 6. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under sections 234

SHRI H B SUDARSHAN ,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,725/-, which is not exigible top income-tax under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellants case. 6. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under sections 234

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. SHRI. H B SUDARSHAN , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,725/-, which is not exigible top income-tax under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellants case. 6. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under sections 234

SHRI H B SUDARSHAN ,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,725/-, which is not exigible top income-tax under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellants case. 6. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under sections 234

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. SHRI H B SUDARSHAN , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,725/-, which is not exigible top income-tax under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellants case. 6. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under sections 234

SHRI H B SUDARSHAN,CHIKKAMANGALUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,725/-, which is not exigible top income-tax under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellants case. 6. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under sections 234

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI H B SUDARSHAN , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,725/-, which is not exigible top income-tax under the fact and in the circumstances of the Appellants case. 6. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under sections 234

M/S DAVALAGIRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act has retrospective effect without appreciating that the said proviso casts a fresh burden on the appellant to establish the source of the source of share application money received and hence, the same cannot be regarded as having retrospective operation. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MONICA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

234 B of the Act is not in accordance with law since the rate, method of calculation, quantum is not discernable from the Order of assessment on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Respondent / Cross Objector craves leave to add, alter, delete, substitute or modify any of the grounds urged above. 10. For the above and other

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MARGRIT GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

234 B of the Act is not in accordance with law since the rate, method of calculation, quantum is not discernable from the Order of assessment on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Respondent / Cross Objector craves leave to add, alter, delete, substitute or modify any of the grounds urged above. 10. For the above and other

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS.ANITHA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

234 B of the Act is not in accordance with law since the rate, method of calculation, quantum is not discernable from the Order of assessment on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Respondent / Cross Objector craves leave to add, alter, delete, substitute or modify any of the grounds urged above. 10. For the above and other

ITO, BANGALORE vs. DR. ARVIND GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

234 B of the Act is not in accordance with law since the rate, method of calculation, quantum is not discernable from the Order of assessment on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Respondent / Cross Objector craves leave to add, alter, delete, substitute or modify any of the grounds urged above. 10. For the above and other

M/S. MAHAVEERA MINORITY CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , HOSPET

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

sections": [ "68", "115BBE", "250", "69", "234-A", "234-B", "234-C", "143(3)", "44AB", "69A", "26(2)" ], "issues": "Whether

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 10 of 31 11. The Appellant craves

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 10 of 31 11. The Appellant craves

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 10 of 31 11. The Appellant craves

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 10 of 31 11. The Appellant craves

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

68,81,556/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Without Prejudice the learned assessing officer is not justified in law in adding a sum of Rs. 7,16,22,000/- under section 69A / 69 of the Income Tax Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Without Prejudice the learned Assessing Officer