CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao

Smt. S.M.Shoba, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40th Cross, 4th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: CXKPS1454H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ramasubramanian, CA : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order date…

Sri. Ramakrishna Nishtala, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sri Ramakrishna Nishtala, The Dy. Commissioner of Villa No.735, Adarsh Palm Income-tax, Retreat, Circle-7(1)(2), Phase-III, Sy. No.94/4, V Bengaluru. Doddakannehalli, s. Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk-562106. PAN – ABWPN 0410 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Chytanya KK, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Kannan Narayan, JCIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 22-07-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30 -09-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(2), Bangalore vs. Shri Mujeeb Urrahman, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

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

…constructed a residential Building in the year 2017-18 and in support of the construction filed a valuation report dtd. 15-12-2018. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. K. Ramachandra (2015) 277 CTR 522 (Kar) wherein it was held that the deduction cannot be denied if the Assessee had intention to retain the cash to invest in construction even if not deposited in the Capital Gain Deposit Account. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the assessee is entitled for the deduction admissible u/s. 54 of the Act since a major portion of Rs. 1,70,16,279/…

Smt.Girija Varadaraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(3), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

…thin the period stipulated u/s. 54F of the Act in the construction of new residential house in the name of her spouse, exemption u/s. 54F has to be granted. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao, 277 CTR 522 (Kar). 5. It was submitted that if the actual investment is made within the period stipulated u/s. 139(1), though the assessee has not deposited in the capital gain account scheme, the exemption u/s. 54F cannot be denied on the reason that construction has not been completed in all respects and it was not fit for occupation for residential purpo…

Smt.Chandrakala Shashidar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.1039/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 Smt.Chandrakala Shashidhar The Income Tax Officer No.266, Navneeth, 6th Cross Ward 5(2)(4) v. Vikramaditya Road, Laxmipura Bengaluru. Gavipuram Bengaluru – 560 019. PAN : BFCPS4326H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Vivek D.S., CA Respondent by :Sri. Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 14.07.2021 Date of Hearing : 12.07.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is direct…

Sri Joseph K.Zachariah, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.879/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15

…ption u/s. 54 was attributable beyond the control of the assesse it was requested that the exemption may be allowed. 3. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Rama Chandra Rao (277 CTR 522), However, the lower authorities rejected the claim of the assessee on the reason that unutilized amount of Capital Gains should be invested in the Capital Gain Scheme notified by the Central Government before the due date of filing the return of income. Since the assessee has not deposited the unutilized portion of capital gains into the capital…

Sri. Ramaiah Dorairaj, Bengalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarishri Ramaiah Dorairaj, No.2186, Bmkaval, Hal 3Rd Stage, Bangalore-560 075 ….Appellant Pan Abrpd 2580L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadrshi Mishra, Jcit (D.R)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ B ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Ramaiah Dorairaj, No.2186, BMKAVAL, HAL 3rd Stage, Bangalore-560 075 ….Appellant PAN ABRPD 2580L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadrshi Mishra, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 08.12.2020. Date of Pronouncement : 09.12.2020. O R D E R PER SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of…

Smt. Padma Rajagopalan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(5), Bangalore

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

…N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 Padma Rajagopalan, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.2A, Ward-3(3)(5), Rukmini Apartments, Bengaluru. No.1, Annamaya Block, Vs. Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru-560 020. PAN – ALUPP 2532 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Prashanth G.S, C.A Appellant by Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 17-09-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 20-09-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee agains…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 6(3)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri. Sandeep Bhujanga Shetty, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

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

…No. 1410/Bang/2013. Ld. AR placed Page 7 of 13 ITA 1068/BANG/2019 & ITA 1070/Bang/2019 A. Y : 2015 – 16 reliance on decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Jay Subramanya Bhat reported in 165 ITR 571 and CIT vs Ramachandra Rao reported in 277 CTR 522 in support of his contentions. It is submitted that, Hon’ble Court in these decisions answered question in favour of assessee that; Where assessee invests entire sale consideration and construction of residential house within 3 years from the date of transfer can he be denied exemption under section 54F of on the ground that he did not deposit th…

Sri. M N Sheshagiri, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3), Mysore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

…ntrary to the decision rendered, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in law in not following the jurisdictional High Court Decision in the 3 Sri.M.N.Sheshagiri. case of CIT, Bangalore v. K Ramachandra Rao [2015] 277 CTR 522 (Karnataka) which is binding on the learned CIT(A) on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234B of the Act and further the calculation of interest under section 234B of the Act is not in accordance with law since the rate, method of calculation, qu…