MR. ASHOK BATHLA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act requires to be waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case. 17.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 18.In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal

C.K. RAMAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

68 to section 69 of the Act. 6. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT (Appeals), LTU, Bangalore is not justified in confirming the addition confining herself only to human probabilities instead of appreciating the submissions and evidences produced. 7. The appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest u/s. 234B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

68,494/- under section 2 (22) (e) of the Act protectively. 5. Aggrieved by additions made by the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 6. The Ld.CIT(A) disposed off the appeal vide order dated 26/09/2016 partly allowing the appeal with respect to the income computed under regular provisions of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) however upheld

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B 2011-12 5 4 3. It is submitted that the above issues that are common are on identical facts for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14 in case of GMR Infrastructure Ltd. In case of GMR Highways Ltd. for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 following are the common issues alleged by assessee. Assessment Issues Ground No. Year Disallowance

GMR HIGHWAYS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B 2011-12 5 4 3. It is submitted that the above issues that are common are on identical facts for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14 in case of GMR Infrastructure Ltd. In case of GMR Highways Ltd. for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 following are the common issues alleged by assessee. Assessment Issues Ground No. Year Disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B 2011-12 5 4 3. It is submitted that the above issues that are common are on identical facts for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14 in case of GMR Infrastructure Ltd. In case of GMR Highways Ltd. for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 following are the common issues alleged by assessee. Assessment Issues Ground No. Year Disallowance

GMR HIGHWAYS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B 2011-12 5 4 3. It is submitted that the above issues that are common are on identical facts for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14 in case of GMR Infrastructure Ltd. In case of GMR Highways Ltd. for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 following are the common issues alleged by assessee. Assessment Issues Ground No. Year Disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B 2011-12 5 4 3. It is submitted that the above issues that are common are on identical facts for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14 in case of GMR Infrastructure Ltd. In case of GMR Highways Ltd. for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 following are the common issues alleged by assessee. Assessment Issues Ground No. Year Disallowance

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B 2011-12 5 4 3. It is submitted that the above issues that are common are on identical facts for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14 in case of GMR Infrastructure Ltd. In case of GMR Highways Ltd. for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 following are the common issues alleged by assessee. Assessment Issues Ground No. Year Disallowance

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B 2011-12 5 4 3. It is submitted that the above issues that are common are on identical facts for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14 in case of GMR Infrastructure Ltd. In case of GMR Highways Ltd. for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 following are the common issues alleged by assessee. Assessment Issues Ground No. Year Disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B 2011-12 5 4 3. It is submitted that the above issues that are common are on identical facts for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14 in case of GMR Infrastructure Ltd. In case of GMR Highways Ltd. for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 following are the common issues alleged by assessee. Assessment Issues Ground No. Year Disallowance

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B 2011-12 5 4 3. It is submitted that the above issues that are common are on identical facts for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14 in case of GMR Infrastructure Ltd. In case of GMR Highways Ltd. for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 following are the common issues alleged by assessee. Assessment Issues Ground No. Year Disallowance

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B 2011-12 5 4 3. It is submitted that the above issues that are common are on identical facts for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14 in case of GMR Infrastructure Ltd. In case of GMR Highways Ltd. for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 following are the common issues alleged by assessee. Assessment Issues Ground No. Year Disallowance

SYED MOHAMMED RIZWAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(8), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Syed Mohammed Rizwan Vs The Income Tax Officer-2(2)(8) No. 193, 1St Main Road Bmtc Depot Sheshadripuram Koramangala Bangalore 560020 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Afvpr3337R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-11, Bangalore Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A) 11, Bangalore Is Bad In Law & 'Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Assessment Order Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2.1 The Learned Ao Erred In Making The Addition Under Section 68 Amounting To Rs. 3,99,46,180, Rs. 33,69,742 & .The Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 24(B) Amounting To Rs. 2,00,000 In An Undue, Haste & Mechanical Manner Without Properly Considering The Details & Documents Filed During The Assessment. 2.2 The Learned Ao Erred In Passing The Assessment Order & Erred In Making The Impugned Additions Without Issuing Any Show Cause Notice

68 amounting to Rs. 33,89,742 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 24(b) — Rs. 5. 2,00,000 5.1. The learned CIT(A) 11, Bangalore erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure under section 24(b) amounting to Rs. 2,00,000 without considering the certificate

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Act is ITA No.705, 706 & 707/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 19 not mandatory rather directory in nature, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

234B", "139", "143(3)", "142(1)", "144", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid, and whether additions made under Section 68

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5. The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents/ details/ information

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 5. The authorities below failed to take cognisance of the various documents/ details/ information