BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68, it\nis applicable for share capital, share premium.\n\n7.\nHe submitted as per the above table, the repayment\nof the loan trough bank has been made in subsequent\nyears. He relied on the following judgments:-\n\nPage 19 of 29\nITA No.1035/Bang/2023\n1) CIT Vs. Empire Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 43\ntaxmann.com 269

SRI.YARABOLU SESHADRI REDDY,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

68 of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiating the proceedings under Section 271D by issuing a notice under Section 274 of the Act on 25.9.2014 in respect of accepting the loan amount of Rs.2,00,500 cash from Mr. Y. Venkatarami Reddy, father of assessee. The assessee vide his reply dt.13.10.2014 contended that provisions of Section

M/S MARIGOLD LOGISTICS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 68 of the act has been submitted by assessee to Ld.AO against which no doubt has been casted. He also submitted that, all share applicants are regular income tax assessee and therefore the details filed by them was verifiable. 8. Placing reliance on decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DCIT vs. Soft Line Creations

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

section shall not be disclosed to any person\nor any authority or the Appellate Tribunal.”\n\nIn view of the above explanation the appellant cannot raise the ground of validity and legality\nof the search operation before the present Hon’ble Tribunal since the appellate Tribunal is not the\n\nITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024\nITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024\nPage

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 68 of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Udit Kalra 220/2019 dated 08.03.2019 has dealt with the argument that the appellant was denied the right of cross examination of individuals whose statements was used by the revenue and did not find it to be relevant in view of other adverse findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

68 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 69 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 70 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 71 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 72 of 155 15. On the other hand, the learned DR relied

SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

section 234A 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The appellant craves leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above. 15. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

68 of the Act and thus the addition mad of Rs.10,45,798/- as unexplained cash credits need to be deleted under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) The AO failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant could not have influenced the share prices as the sale took place in a recognized stock exchange on a screen

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 57 Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 57 Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 57 Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 57 Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. Article 265 of the ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 57 Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTION) WARD-3,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

68 ITD 0560, she submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s 271B initiated 34 months after the completion of assessment was held to be invalid. He accordingly submitted that since, in the instant case, the penalty proceedings have been initiated after a period of more than four years, therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

68 ITD 0560, she submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s 271B initiated 34 months after the completion of assessment was held to be invalid. He accordingly submitted that since, in the instant case, the penalty proceedings have been initiated after a period of more than four years, therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld