PUKHRAJ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Pukhraj, Vs. Acit, Prop: Kissan Trading Co., Circle – 1, Bhati Complex, Shivamogga. 1St Cross Garden Area, Shivamogga – 577 202. Pan : Afjpp 7695 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S

68 of the Act cannot be sustained and is therefore deleted. This ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. 12. The next issue for our consideration is the addition made under section 69C of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed Rs.33,985/- as deduction towards housing loan interest. The AO called for details

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

M/S. SRI AMBHRINEE VIDYESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA ,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2017-18

273/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the society registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act 1997 is at par with the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act 1959. The assessee in support of its contention relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

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, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D of the Act. xxi. The CIT(A) also grossly erred in not taking note of the fact that if these amounts were really the income of the appellant, there must have been assets to represent these corresponding incomes which ought to have been unearthed in the course of search proceedings. xxii. The very

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

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

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

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

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

68,94,858 The learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234B of the Act consequent to the above adjustments. 13. Calculation of Interest on resulting adjustment under section 234D of the Act: Rs. 1,98,82,191 The learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234D of the Act consequent

DCIT vs. M/S JUPITER CAPIAL PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

68 (AP) held as follows: To claim depreciation under section 32 in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, one of the conditions to be fulfilled is that they must be owned by the assessee. The requirement of ownership will be deemed to be fulfilled if the assessee has the dominion and control over the property

BASAVARAJ LAXMANAGOUDA BIRADAR,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

273/-(Rupees Twenty five Lakhs Two Hundred seventy three) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 7.1 Thus, it is evident from the above finding of the ld. AO that the ld. AO has initiated the penalty for both limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. concealment of income and filing

TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 256/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 – 12

273 Technical assistance fees 8,41,89,853 Total 4067,68,41,657 3. Ld. TPO observed that, during the year, assessee was engaged in carrying out two activities being Manufacturing and Page 9 of 18 IT(TP) 256/Bang/2016 A. Y : 2011 – 12 Trading. It was also observed that, all these segments were combined for TP analysis under TNMM