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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

House Property (as per para 4.4)\n2,75,65,005\nCaptial Gains\nShort Term Capital Loss (C/F Loss)\n(11,06,093)\nLong Term Capital Gain (Exempt

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

exemption provided under sec.47(iii), as correct provision of law applies to the case of the assessee is Page 21 of 31 sec.47(iv) of which the condition has not been satisfied by the assessee company. 72. Gift is definitely a transfer of property. The mother law governing the subject matter of transfer of property is Transfer of Property

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

house property”. 8. For Exemption u/s.54 & 54F, the assessee is given 2 years to purchase the house property or 3 years

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. 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

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

SHRI.RAMAKRISHNA ASHWATH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ramakrishna Aswatgh, No. 40, 1St Floor, 1St Main, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, 3Rd Stage, Bhel Officer, Layout, Vs. Ward – 6 (3) (3), Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 080. Pan: Adrpa6087D Appellant Respondent

house property. However, the exemption Under Section 54F is available only for purchase or construction of a new property, the assessee

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

exemption to individuals or HUF’s from long term capital gains arising on sale of residential house property in case

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

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

exemption U/s 54F of the Act of 1961. 8. In short, the assessee made two claims by way of the aforesaid letters viz., (i) deletion of income from House 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

property for claiming exemption u/s 54 of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the A.O. in this regard reads as follows:- “Transfer of residential house

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

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

exempt u/s 54F. Copy of the sanction plan of the house was enclosed. 4) Copy of some of the material purchase bills were 5) submitted. 5. The order sheet entry of the AO in the assessment proceedings on 31.07.2017 records the fact that the assessee had produced copy of ITR, Bank Statement, 26AS copy, Sale Deed copy and further states

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

exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The date of transfer of the Crystal Arc property as stated in the sale deed was 5.12.2012. The assessee was to have either purchased a residential house

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

exemption U/s 54F on re-investment to\nthe tune of Rs. 151,74,000/- and concluded the assessment.\nPage 3 of 13\nITA No.825/Bang/2024\nJagajit Singh Bajwa, Bangalore\nWherein in her order page No. 8 in computation it has been\nmentioned as follows:\n1. Income from House Properties

SHRI. G B SHIVARAJAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

house 7 Sri.G.B.Shivarajappa. property, in the hands of his son, who has claimed exemption to the extent he received from

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

exemption in respect of two independent residential houses situated at different locations; one is in Dilshad Colony, Delhi and the other is in Faridabad. The assessee in the Special Bench case had also purchased two residential houses against sale consideration of residential flat at 'Gulistan' situated at Bhulabai Desai Road, Mumbai. One residential property

M/S. G CROP PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

house property income. However, it is observed that in Me initial period a loan was taken by the assessee for its construction activities. After the completion of project, the finance loan was converted by the Bank to lease rental discounting facilities so that rental collection could be utilized to repay the loan facilities. The AO has not examined the fact

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

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

exempt investments ITA Nos. 325 & 326/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 9 Total disallowance attracted G A + E + F Rs. 14,57,886 u/s 14A read with Rule 8D The above amount of Rs. 14,57,886 was disallowed u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Act. ” 7. Aggrieved by the disallowance of expenses u/s.14A

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

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

exempt investments ITA Nos. 325 & 326/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 9 Total disallowance attracted G A + E + F Rs. 14,57,886 u/s 14A read with Rule 8D The above amount of Rs. 14,57,886 was disallowed u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Act. ” 7. Aggrieved by the disallowance of expenses u/s.14A

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

exemption even though the amendment was made only to sub-section(1) of section 54 and 54F of the Act. 4) That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the residential property in Jayanagar has to be considered as one residential house