M/S ESTEEM MALL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6(3((1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year:

house property was Rs.13,24,488. The assessee claimed standard deduction @ 30% of it. However, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that deduction to the extent of 30% of Rs.57,52,392 has to be disallowed

M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

house property even though it cannot be added as per the provisions of the Act. 7. The assessee also raised following additional grounds:- (i) The interest cost is Rs.7.03 crore and not Rs.4.34 crore as raised in original grounds of appeal. (ii) Depreciation on the asset leased has to be allowed. (iii) Deduction on section 80G of Rs.5 lakh

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

House Property, although the nature of activity carried out was akin to Business and such income was partially set off against the Business Loss. 8. During the proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO had concluded the assessment by re-computing the taxable income of the appellant at Rs. 2,88,46,1901- after disallowance

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

property meant for construction of residential house and also the assessee was not able to demonstrate what are the circumstances provoked the assessee in not constructing new house during the stipulated period. Hence, in our opinion, the ld. AO is justified in disallowing

PADMANABAN SUKHUMARAN ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee towards the interest claimed u/s

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

house property loss claimed by the assessee for the J.P. Nagar property was disallowed. The assessing officer calculated loss from

SURESH KUMAR ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s. 24(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.21,46,636/- on ground that same was not a housing loan but the loan against the property

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

house property, but the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.1,26,00,000/- to one Shri B.Suresh for the purchase of an agricultural land of 2 acres bearing SY No.71 of (Block No.1) of Chakkarasanahalli Village, Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk Evidencing an unregistered agreement for the agricultural land. No registered documents were produced by the assessee

BHAGYA MAHANTESH KHODANPUR ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhagya Mahantesh Khodanpur, Income Tax Officer, Indu Arcade, Vithoba Galli, Ward-2(1), Durgadbail, Vs. Hubballi. Hubballi-580020. Pan No : Apxpk0150P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Bhagya Mahantesh Khodanpur Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) (In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2015-16 On 28/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 29/12/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurugram U/S. 250 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2025 Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Addition Of Rs. 4,42,500/- Is Bad In Law & 2. Liable To Be Deleted.

house property”. 2.3. The reasons of the Ld. AO and Ad. CIT(A) disallowing the deduction of Rs. 4,42,492/- is contrary

S.M. VINOD (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SRI. S M MUNIYAPPA),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the deduction of Rs.1,63,03,233/- claimed u/s. 54F of the Act on the ground Page 2 of 14 that the appellant has violated the provisions of section 54F of the Act by owning more than one residential house at the time of sale of original asset. 3) That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

house property” for the subsequent assessment year, namely, A.Y. 2017-2018 onwards. For the aforesaid reasons, I delete the addition made by the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. 8. Therefore, grounds 2 to 5 are allowed. Addition under the head “other sources” 12 ITA No.203/Bang/2022. Sri.Yash Vardhan Arya. 9. The A.O. made an addition of Rs.2

M/S. DEEPALI COMPANY PRIVAE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax (Earlier Known As :Deepali Co. Officer, Pvt. Ltd.) Ward – 2 (1)(2), 35, Commercial Street, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Pan: Aaacd5120H Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Addl. Cit (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 03.0.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2016-17 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Not Allowing Business Loss For The Year Of Rs. 114,66.766/- On The Ground That The Business Of The Assessee Company Is Closed & There Are No Receipts From Operation Of Business.

house property and carry forward of loss to the future years amounting to Rs.76,26,766/-. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee is a going concern, and the business activity has not been closed and there was only a temporary lull in its activity. He submitted that the lull in the business was due to a dispute amongst

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property. The claim of the Assessee is that it is chargeable to tax as profits and gains of business and profession. 5. Coming to the ground no. 17, with respect to the depreciation, the fact shows that Assessee has made an addition of Rs. 15,56,16,965/- and intangible assets were added

G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

house property'. However, the disallowance of 1/5th of preconstruction period interest was confirmed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "23", "24", "111A

M/S. VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

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

house property”. Whereas, the rental income from equipment was considered as “income from other sources” by the assessee. The A.O., however, reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” and disallowed

NISHA VIJAY ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowing the same. The assessee before both the authorities below submitted that while selling and giving away the possession of the house, the assessee did not taken a part of these items or remove the said items from the house and property

VIJAY LAKHMICHAND ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowing the same. The assessee before both the authorities below submitted that while selling and giving away the possession of the house, the assessee did not taken a part of these items or remove the said items from the house and property

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.

house. He also submitted that the disallowance is justified as assessee is co-owner of the said new asset along with her husband. The Ld.Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 5. Assessee purchased a property

PREMA KUMARI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House Property" and that the property was financed from borrowed funds. Accordingly, the interest deduction under section 24(b) of the Act is allowable. The ld. CIT(A), however, failed to appreciate this factual position and confirmed the disallowance

PREMA KUMARI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House Property" and that the property was financed from borrowed funds. Accordingly, the interest deduction under section 24(b) of the Act is allowable. The ld. CIT(A), however, failed to appreciate this factual position and confirmed the disallowance