Search: house property

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2097/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, CIT (DR-I)

blocks were under construction for Page 2 of 12 the year ending upto 31.03.2010. The assessee was also involved into business of construction of a hotel for the year ending 31.03.2010. 3. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order, has recorded at pages 2 to 4 of the order that the assessee company has shown the following income. 1. INCOME

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 974/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 234

Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560011. PAN : AACCS3831L Vs. 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, : RESPONDENTS Circle-12(3), Bengaluru. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee by : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT Date of hearing : 21.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2017 ITA No.974, 975/Bang/2016 Page

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 975/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 234

Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560011. PAN : AACCS3831L Vs. 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, : RESPONDENTS Circle-12(3), Bengaluru. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee by : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT Date of hearing : 21.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2017 ITA No.974, 975/Bang/2016 Page

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

ITA 3012/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri Naresndra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 24Section 250

Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Suresh Kumar Rathna Ultra Sound Scanning Centre 7th Main, 4th Block, Jayanagar ITO Vs. Bengaluru 560 011 Ward 2(2)(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AFPPK6866E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Naresndra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

ITA 2484/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: None

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

house property income after giving opportunity to the assessee company. ix. In pursuance to that, the learned assessing officer issued notice to the assessee of granting opportunity on 18 December 2019, the assessee submitted and submission on 21 December 2019 and after considering the submission the assessment was completed wherein the learned assessing officer computed the gross annual value

SRI. GANGA POORNA PRASAD,MYSURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MYSURU

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

ITA 41/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Sri Ganga Poorna Prasad, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #718, Ii Main, 1St Cross, 1St Block, Income Tax, Ramakrishnagar, Circle-2(1), Mysuru – 570 026. Mysuru. Pan : Aiqpp 5131 K Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24

Block, Income Tax, Ramakrishnagar, Circle-2(1), Mysuru – 570 026. Mysuru. PAN : AIQPP 5131 K Assessee by : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 04.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07.10.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated

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

ITA 950/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 234ASection 24Section 250

Block, Brigade Gardenia, J P Nagar 7th Phase, The Assistant Bangalore – 560 078. Commissioner of Income Tax, Presently at Villa 126, Sobha Circle – 5(3)(1), Lifestyle Legacy, Bangalore. Vs. IVC Road, Devanahalli, Bangalore – 562 110. PAN: AMOPS7248G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03-09-2025 Date

SRI. G.S. SHIVANNA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-4, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Satish S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

Block , Bangalore. The site was purchased on 08.11.2013 for a sum of Rs.3,32,10,000- copy of sale deed was Page 3 of 10 submitted. The Assessee claimed that LTCG on sale of site is exempt u/s 54F. Copy of the sanction plan of the house was enclosed. 4) Copy of some of the material purchase bills were

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

ITA 293/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvoicateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 54

assessment proceedings, it is noticed that a sum of Rs.1,26,00,000/- has been claimed exemption u/s 54 of the 3 ITA No.293/Bang/2020. Dr.Sheela Puttabuddi. Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the assessee has not invested in a residential house property, but the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.1,26,00,000/- to one Shri B.Suresh for the purchase

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

ITA 192/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besa Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)

Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041. PAN: AFPPM 7315E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri C. Sandeep, CA Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besa Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.11.2019 of the CIT(Appeals

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

ITA 585/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

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.

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 24Section 72

assessed the rental income under the head, ”Income from house property”, after allowing deduction u/s. 24 of the Act. The Ld.AO Page 3 of 7 did not allow setting off of the income under the head, “house property”, against the business loss claimed by the assessee. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT

SRI. H. NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 613/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Seshachala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)

block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments. Under Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess the "total income" of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Once the assessment is reopened, the Assessing Authority can take note

MR. ARUNKUMAR NATHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1041/BANG/2017[2013 - 14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru

Section 54

Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds : 2 3. The solitary issue arises in this appeal by the assessee is denial of deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of 2nd Apartment purchased by the assessee. The assessee is an individual and sold house property situated

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1379/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 47

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The Delhi High Court further held that in the cases before it on the date of the search the assessment already stood concluded since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1376/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 47

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The Delhi High Court further held that in the cases before it on the date of the search the assessment already stood concluded since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1378/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 47

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The Delhi High Court further held that in the cases before it on the date of the search the assessment already stood concluded since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1377/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 47

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The Delhi High Court further held that in the cases before it on the date of the search the assessment already stood concluded since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 153ASection 69B

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024