PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

house property. Therefore, firstly what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are the facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly, it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry

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

additions made by the AO were liable to be deleted in this regard for the AY 2012-13. 34. It was further submitted on the depreciation charge that consequent to the change in the method of treating rental income as business income, the assessee had been filing its return of income under Income from House Property

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. SRI. J. KRISHNA PALEMAR, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

Income from house Property. Since, we have upheld the order of CIT (A) on this aspect in respect of three properties out of five properties, we uphold the order of CIT (A) on this issue also in respect of those three properties but for remaining two properties, we have restored the matter back to CIT (A) for a fresh decision

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

income from House Property”, the said property should be ignored for the purpose of applying the proviso to Sec.54F(1) of the Act. The AO however, held that it does not matter as to whether the properties are held in India or Abroad for the purpose of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The AO made an addition

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

addition of annual letting value of Rs.3,76,327/- with respect to Purvankara flat. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the maintenance charges of Rs.59,23,126/- received from the tenant, namely State Bank of India is income from business/profession and not the income from house property

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

additional income offered during the course of survey under any other head of income. Hence, no useful purpose would be served in restoring the issue to AO for examining the source of investment in construction of the house. Therefore, we are of the view that the PCIT is not justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction under section

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

additional income offered during the course of survey under any other head of income. Hence, no useful purpose would be served in restoring the issue to AO for examining the source of investment in construction of the house. Therefore, we are of the view that the PCIT is not justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction under section

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

additional ground, namely, whether the lease rentals received whether it is to be assessed as “income from business” or “income from house property

M/S ABHILASH SOFTWARE & DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2005-06

house property. Page 4 of 8 3. The assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) with the submission that two separate agreements were executed for leasing of immovable property and for providing certain services to the lessee. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of judicial High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Mohan Kumar

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional

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.

addition of Rs. 4,42,492/- be deleted.” 3. Submissions of the Ld. AR: The Ld. AR filed a paper book containing 118 pages. The Ld AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had not allowed deduction of ‘interest income’ from ‘income from house property

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

addition as income from house property because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income

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

income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional

M/S SILVER SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Income from House Property’ as held by the authorities below. 6.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals) and prayed that the assessee's appeals be dismissed. 6.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial decisions cited and placed reliance upon