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’ and not ‘Business Income’ as declared by the assessee; and also upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the issue of initiating assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issuing notices u/s 148 of the Act for asst. years 2004-05 to 2006-07. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A)-I, B’lore

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

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

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

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

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

house during the assessment year 2013-14 and hence not entitled for claim u/s. 54F. The AO passed an assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 21.03.2018 disallowing the claim u/s. 54F and recomputed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,50,88,284. Aggrieved Page 4 of 23 the assessee filed an appeal before

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

housing loan from HDFC Bank to the extent of Rs.55,00,000/-. The statement of HDFC Loan account was also submitted before the AO and as well as DRP. Further, with regard to balance of funding to the extent of Rs.14,00,000/- for the property, the assessee explained as below- 1. Rs.5,00,000/- was paid through vide

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house property” apart from income from “other sources”. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 01.06.2015 declaring the total income of Rs.1,33,60,730. For assessment year 2015-16, the return was filed on 29.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.1,70,33,230. Subsequently, the assessee’s case was taken

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house property” apart from income from “other sources”. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 01.06.2015 declaring the total income of Rs.1,33,60,730. For assessment year 2015-16, the return was filed on 29.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.1,70,33,230. Subsequently, the assessee’s case was taken

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house property” apart from income from “other sources”. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 01.06.2015 declaring the total income of Rs.1,33,60,730. For assessment year 2015-16, the return was filed on 29.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.1,70,33,230. Subsequently, the assessee’s case was taken

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house property” apart from income from “other sources”. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 01.06.2015 declaring the total income of Rs.1,33,60,730. For assessment year 2015-16, the return was filed on 29.02.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.1,70,33,230. Subsequently, the assessee’s case was taken

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Central Circle – 2(1), No.17, Sankey Road, Bengaluru-560 020. Bengaluru. PAN : AAACC 5900 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Assessee by : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Date of hearing : 05.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per Bench These are 4 appeals by the Revenue against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Central Circle – 2(1), No.17, Sankey Road, Bengaluru-560 020. Bengaluru. PAN : AAACC 5900 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Assessee by : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Date of hearing : 05.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per Bench These are 4 appeals by the Revenue against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Central Circle – 2(1), No.17, Sankey Road, Bengaluru-560 020. Bengaluru. PAN : AAACC 5900 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Assessee by : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Date of hearing : 05.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per Bench These are 4 appeals by the Revenue against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Central Circle – 2(1), No.17, Sankey Road, Bengaluru-560 020. Bengaluru. PAN : AAACC 5900 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Assessee by : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Date of hearing : 05.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per Bench These are 4 appeals by the Revenue against

SRI. RAGHUNATH H. BADDI,HUBLI vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.George

property was declared, the deduction was disallowed by the AO. The AO however allowed deduction of Rs.30,000/- out of the interest paid under the 1st proviso to Sec.24(b) of the Act as the residential house was vacant during the previous year and its annual value was nil. This resulted in an addition to the total income of Rs.22

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property belongs to Sh. C.T.Ravi, however the construction was done by the assessee company. 10. In response to the notice u/s. 153C of the Act the Assessee Company filed his returns & assessments duly completed thereafter with the following additions being made to the Income Returned for the impugned assessment years: ITA Nos.299 to 301/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 42 Details

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property belongs to Sh. C.T.Ravi, however the construction was done by the assessee company. 10. In response to the notice u/s. 153C of the Act the Assessee Company filed his returns & assessments duly completed thereafter with the following additions being made to the Income Returned for the impugned assessment years: ITA Nos.299 to 301/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 42 Details

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property belongs to Sh. C.T.Ravi, however the construction was done by the assessee company. 10. In response to the notice u/s. 153C of the Act the Assessee Company filed his returns & assessments duly completed thereafter with the following additions being made to the Income Returned for the impugned assessment years: ITA Nos.299 to 301/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 42 Details

HONNAPPA MUNIVENKATAREDDY ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Honnappa Munivenkatareddy, #316, Overhead Tank Road, The Income Tax Officer, Chickballapur H.O, Chickballapur, Ward-2(1)(1), Vs. Karnataka – 562 101. Bengaluru. Pan: Aoxpm0334G Appellant Respondent

house property on 18.01.2018 at a total consideration of Rs. 23,55,875/- and therefore his total capital gain was nil. 9. The information was received by the Ld. Assessing Officer that Assessee has sold an immovable property for Rs. 50,81,338/- and Assessee is an individual and is non-filer did not file his return of income

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

property sales. As a result, a sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- ITA No 2774-2780/ Bang/2025 Keelukote Venkatappa Jayram Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax central Circle 2 (2), Bangalore AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 3 of 13 was treated as undisclosed investment, supported by the relevant documents. Furthermore, analysis of the seized materials provided evidence

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , , BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

property sales. As a result, a sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- ITA No 2774-2780/ Bang/2025 Keelukote Venkatappa Jayram Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax central Circle 2 (2), Bangalore AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page 3 of 13 was treated as undisclosed investment, supported by the relevant documents. Furthermore, analysis of the seized materials provided evidence