GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

54F stood withdrawn by the assessee itself, and hence we are not required to adjudicate the same in view of concession granted by the assessee itself. Now, the dispute between the rival parties is within narrow compass, and entails interpretation of provisions of Section 54 of the 1961 Act. At this stage, it will be relevant to reproduce the provisions

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation on the property. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that for the purpose of applicability of section 54, registration of document is imperative. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., the assessee is entitled to exemption in terms of section

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; Page 8 of 23 (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 143(3) of the Act on 27.3.2014 determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.7,63,80,700. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation as well as made other additions towards advance fee, income from pharmacy and also denied the deduction towards accumulation of income allowed @ 15% on gross receipts. Apart from this, the Assessing Officer

SMT. KAVITHA KAMLESH SHAH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-6(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciated value of the building in course of time, joint ownership and other disadvantages have not been considered while arriving the above value as against the value of land proposed to be transferred by the Appellant. 8. Assuming for the sake of arguments, there is a transfer as contemplated u/s. 2(47)(v) of the Act during the year

SMT. KAVITHA KAMLESH SHAH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-6(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciated value of the building in course of time, joint ownership and other disadvantages have not been considered while arriving the above value as against the value of land proposed to be transferred by the Appellant. 8. Assuming for the sake of arguments, there is a transfer as contemplated u/s. 2(47)(v) of the Act during the year