INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

68, situated at Singapura, Jalahalli East, Bengaluru. It is seen from the records that the assessee has not offered any income capital gains arising out to the transfer of the above lands to M/s. Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai, in the return of income filed by him for AY 2010-11. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). During the previous year 2008-09, the Appellants (holding a share of 10% each) and along with other co-owners entered into a Joint Development Agreement

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). During the previous year 2008-09, the Appellants (holding a share of 10% each) and along with other co-owners entered into a Joint Development Agreement

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)

section 68 of the Act and thus the addition mad of Rs.10,29,55/- 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

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SHRI. M.R. ANANDARAM (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

5A 12G 23A 22G Total Rs.2,32,50, 000 In respect of the sale transaction dated June 2,2004, it was taken as a sale of capital asset as this sale was after the date of permission for non-agricultural use granted by the Asst. Commissioner, viz., after May 10,2004, whereas the earlier sale transaction dated April

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

5A 12G 23A 22G Total Rs.2,32,50,000 In respect of the sale transaction dated June 2,2004, it was taken as a sale of capital asset as this sale was after the date of permission for non- agricultural use granted by the Asst. Commissioner, viz., after May 1072004, whereas the earlier sale transaction dated April

MRS. SUVINA KRUPAL,SOMWARPET vs. ITO, MADIKERI

In the result appeal stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

5A, Pritech SEZ, Varthur Hobli, Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bangalore-560 037. PAN : AACCC 1734 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Page 2 of 28 ITA No.337 & 204/Bang/2014 Appellant by : Shri L Barath, C.A Respondent by : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT – DR Date of Hearing : 17-06-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 14-08-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present cross appeals

SRI SIRAJUDDIN CHAMAN MIAH SAB MULLA ,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , HAVERI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2981/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Shri. Sirajuddin Chaman Miah Sab Mulla, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, H. No. 47, Vi, Tippaikoppa Village, Ward – 2, P.O. Masur, Hirekerur Tq., Haveri. Haveri Dist – 581 111. Pan : Cgjpm 6493 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kabila H, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019 O R D E R

section 147 is bad in law and thus requires to be cancelled in the interest of equity and Justice. 6.3 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below on this issue. 6.4.1 I have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the orders of the authorities below and submissions put forth

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

5A 12G 23A 22G Total Rs.2,32,50,000 In respect of the sale transaction dated June 2,2004, it was taken as a sale of capital asset as this sale was after the date of permission for non-agricultural use granted by the Asst. Commissioner, viz., after May 1072004, whereas the earlier sale transaction dated April

M/S. BHARATH FRITZ WERNER LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section speaks of : (i) development of facility; (ii) incurring of expenditure by the assessee for development of such facility; (iii) approval of the facility by the prescribed authority, which is DSIR; and (iv) allowance of weighted deduction on the expenditure so incurred by the assessee. ITA No.2244 to 2247 & 2046 to 2049/Bang/2019 M/s. Bhart Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore Page