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. 4. Similarly, the AO noticed that the assessee has received hire charges of fit-outs fitted to the properties let out to the tenants and considered under the head ‘income from other sources”, after claiming related expenditure being depreciation

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

house property. 4. Similarly, the AO noticed that the assessee has received hire charges of fit-outs fitted to the properties let out to the tenants and considered under the head ‘income from other sources”, after claiming related expenditure being depreciation

SHAMBALA PROPERTIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLR-12(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Shambala Properties Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.7, Rest House Road, Circle – 12(3) Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. (Presently – Dcit – 7(1)(2)), Pan No : Aahcs 1313 C Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Elamurusu G, Jcit (Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020

House Property. 11.That the Learned Assessing officer / CIT(A) erred in not allowing the expenditure incurred by the appellant in providing power to the lessees. 12. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim for expenditure shown under the head Income from other sources. 13.That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing depreciation

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” instead of business income as disclosed by the assessee. The A.O. further held that depreciation is not allowable

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

property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes in the case of charitable organizations and for determining accumulation of income required thereof keeping in view provisions of Section 11 , and secondly while computing the income in commercial parlance by taking into effect depreciation expenses on such capital assets under Section 32 of the 1961 Act. Section 11 falls within Chapter

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

depreciation and interest on the borrowed funds utilized for the business were liable to be allowed in full. 8. Without prejudice, the additions/ disallowance are excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and ought to be reduced substantially. 9. The learned Commissioner (A) erred in sustaining the interest u/s.234B & 234D of the Act. 10. For these and other grounds that may be urged

CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1209 & 1212/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years – 2004-05 To 2006-2007 & 2009-10) M/S Consulate Constructions, Unit No.102, Consulate I, No.1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Aacfc7082Q. Vs.

house property as against business income as declared by the appellant on the facts of the case. ITA No.1209-1212/B/14 7 5. Without prejudice, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the conditions precedent to claim depreciation

CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1209 & 1212/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years – 2004-05 To 2006-2007 & 2009-10) M/S Consulate Constructions, Unit No.102, Consulate I, No.1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Aacfc7082Q. Vs.

house property as against business income as declared by the appellant on the facts of the case. ITA No.1209-1212/B/14 7 5. Without prejudice, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the conditions precedent to claim depreciation

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 Page 4 of 7 property. As per section 72 of the Act, any loss under the head, ‘profit and gain of business,’ other than speculation loss and depreciation

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property is considered, it would continue to\nbe owned by co-owners. Joint ownership is different from absolute\nownership. In the case of residential unit, none of the co-owners can\nclaim that he is the owner of residential house. Ownership of a\nresidential house, in our opinion, means ownership to the exclusion of\nall others. Therefore, where a house

M/S MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15 M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, #41, Mantri House, Dcit Circle – 4 (1) (2), Vittal Malya Road, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560001 Pan : Aaacg4009N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – 4 Bengaluru Dated 30.11.2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

house property and not under the head income from business because had it been the case of the AO or CIT (A), Annual Value would have been brought to tax and deduction would have been allowed of interest u/s 24 and only depreciation

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

RAVINDRA SUNKU,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property’. Hence the orders of the authorities below for this issue was set aside and the claim of the assessee is allowed. 11 IT(I.T)A Nos.65 & 66/Bang/2015 6. Ground No.6 is allowance of depreciation

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" as claimed by the Appellant! Assessee and deciding the issue raised by Appellant in favour of revenue, without appreciating the true facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Without prejudice to Ground of Appeal 1, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, if at all, rental income earned from building amounting

M/S.BINDU AGRO PRODUCTS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

depreciation, electricity, property tax, interest on vehicle loan, professional charges, etc. All these expenses have been incurred by the assessee only with respect to the activity of development of property and leasing out of the property. Thus the learned Authorised Representative has submitted that the business loss is an allowable 5 claim and has to be set off against

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

M/S PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.806/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Prestige Garden Constructions P. Ltd, The Falcon House No.1, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Appellant Pan : Aabcp2901E V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padamchand Khindha, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, Cit Heard On : 25.05.2016 Pronounced On : 10.06.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

house property’. By considering the receipt of business income, assessee, in the opinion of Pr. CIT, had claimed huge depreciation

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

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