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\nis thus an artificially defined income and the liability arises from\nthe fact that the assessee is the owner of the property. In our\nconsidered opinion the words \"to let\" used in clause (a) of sub\nsection (1) of section 23 of the Act cannot be divorced from the\nearlier words. These words are qualified by the words

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

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

house property', the appellant did not claim depreciation allowance under section 32 in respect of the buildings Let out on rent. The said depreciation was also not claimed Page 7 of 12 in computing the income/Loss under the head 'Profits and gains of business'. Assuming without admitting that the entire rental income is assessable under the head 'Profits and gains

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

10. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and on facts, by arbitrarily attributing motives to the transaction of gift on mere presumptions by stating that the Appellant considered the transaction as a 'gift' with the intention to avail the benefit of section 54F of the Act, without appreciating the contemporaneous documents filed in respect of the transactions undertaken

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.EAGLETON PROPERTY HOLDINGS CIRCLE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eagleton Property Holdings, Income Tax #4, Model House Street, Circle -7(2)(1), Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 004. Pan : Aabfe 9867 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Arun Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 7.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 7.1.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

housing project as an eligible project u/s 80IB(10). Page 3 of 10 4. One of the condition for claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) is that the Built up area of the units in a project should not exceed 1500 sq.ft. 5. The AO with a view to ascertain whether County-I project has complied with conditions of section

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. Thus, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 48 towards cost of acquisition to the tune of Rs. 18,38,292/- being interest on housing loan, as the assessee has already availed deduction of interest under section 24(b) of the Act. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with

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

property must have been really and substantially purchased or constructed by the assessee for the immediate purpose of his own residence.” Thus in case where a residential house is purchased not for the end purpose of assessee's own residential house but only as an investment or earning income then the benefit of the provision under Section 54/54F would

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

10, Mumbai (supra), has held as under: "It was the case of the revenue that clause (c) of section 23 (1) can only be invoked in those cases where the property was let out in earlier years or in the present year. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that the intention of letting out the property

M/S. SILICON ESTATES,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Silicon Estates, The Deputy # 14, 6Th Floor, Commissioner Of Geneva House, Income Tax, Cunningham Road, Central Circle Bengaluru – 560 001. 1(4), Vs. Pan: Abefs6150N Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2023 Order Per Madhumita Roythe Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2020 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 1(4), Bangalore U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Y. 2013-14 Whereby & Whereunder The Rejection Of The Claim U/S. 80Ib(10) Of Rs.4,03,40,492/- For A.Y. 2013-14 Has Been Confirmed.

property developers, following mercantile system of accounting, filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 disclosing income at Rs.2,86,000/- after claiming deduction of Rs.4,03,40,492/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The assessee has paid tax u/s. 115JB of the Act. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 30.09.2013. Subsequently, upon selection

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property at Airport Road is nil u/s 23(1)(c) of the Act. 9. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the value of Jayanagar property is unexplained even though the appellant had accounted the value of the site in its books of account. 10. That the learned Commissioner

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

10. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section 14 in Chapter - IV of the Income Tax Act provides heads of income namely (a) salary (b) (....) (c) income from house property

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

Property Act 1882 (herein after TPA) and as the appellant is contesting the application of this provision in the present case, I have examined closely the ingredients of the above provisions. 5.6 Further, the amendment to section 54 F (1) by substituting the words Page 9 of 10 'constructed', one residential house

KANTILAL JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

10,00,000, thereby offering an excess income of Rs. 62,750 [4,78,000 — 4,15,250]; and d) the entry appearing under section 194DA in Form 26AS is not conclusive. 2.4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not appreciating that a) the appellant had relied upon the amendment to section 194DA made by the Finance (No.2

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

section 80G of Rs.5 lakh has to be allowed. 8. As regards the additional grounds raised, it was stated before the first appellate authority that the financial charges / interest expenditure of Rs.7.03 crore should be allowed instead of Rs.4.34 crore, as mentioned in the original grounds of appeal. The CIT(A) directed the A.O. to furnish a remand report

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:-

section (1) as if such house or houses had been let. (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the Page 12 of 15 whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

10 sphere of section 154 of the Act, rectification of assessment order is not permissible unless such order suffers from apparent mistake. In its defense, it is claimed on behalf of assessee that lease rent from developed space in SEZ carries the trapping of business income, regardless of its wrong declaration under the head ‘income from house property

M/S. INDRAPRASTHA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year :2011-12 M/S. Indraprastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Prestige Corniche, Circle –11(4), No.62/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aabci 2643 B Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2020 O R D E R

10,64,559/-. In computing the income under the head “Income from House Property”, the assessee has claimed deduction of a sum of Rs.69,84,167/- under section

M/S K.BABU (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. K. Babu (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2, Dollars Colony, Ward – 7(2)(3), 1St Cross, 2Nd Main, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan: Aaggk 0809 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

10. The context in which the expression 'a residential house' is used in Section 54 makes it clear that, it was not the intention of the legislation to convey the meaning that it refers to a single residential house, if that was the intention, they would have used the word "one." As in the earlier part, the words used