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

house property, profits and gains of business, capital gains and income from other sources. The scheme of the TDS provisions applies not only to the amount paid, which bears the character of "income" such as salaries, dividends, interest on securities etc. but the said provisions also apply to gross sums, the whole of which may not be income or profits

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

10. Aggrieved, the assessee has now filed appeal before the Tribunal . It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no double deduction as both the deductions operate on different field as interest on housing loan is allowed as deduction under section 24(b) , while interest paid on the housing loan is added to cost of acquisition

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

34,00,000 respectively total amounting to Rs.2,63,73,596. Accordingly, the assessee claimed the deduction under Section 54 of the Act in respect of both the apartments purchased by the assessee and against the entire capital gain arising from sale of house property. The Assessing Officer denied the 3 claim of the assessee for the second apartment

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

34,060. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 was issued and served. Further notice u/s 3 ITA No.982/Bang/2019. M/s.Embassy Knowledge Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd. 142(1) of the I.T.Act were also issued on various dates. The assessee declared the entire income under the head “Profits and gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

10 of 14 income from house property to be eligible for the benefit of deduction u/s. 24(a) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the rental agreements executed by 27. the assessee with its tenants required the tenants to pay apart from the rent, the charges for parking facility provided which the AO had failed to consider

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 declared by the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. D.R. submitted that there is total lack of application of mind on the part of the A.O. and hence Ld. Principal CIT has rightly invoked revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, since the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, he submitted that

SHRI.T.A.V.GUPTA ,TURUVEKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazshri. T.A.V. Gupta, Birla Corner, B.T. Road, Turuvekere – 572227, Pan: Albpg6202G. . Appellant

34,526/- was disallowed by the AO. 4. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Assessee before CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.G Rukminiamma – 331 ITR 221, wherein the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held on the facts

M/S MANJUNATHA LAND DEVELOPERS AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.642/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S. Manjunatha Land Developers & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, No.849, 1St Floor, 12Th Cross, 4Th Main, 1St Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038 .. Appellant Pan : Aadcm9356M V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -12(1), Bangalore .. Respondent

Properties (supra), at para 29 has observed as under : “29. From the aforesaid letter of CBDT, it is clear that for the purposes of Section 80IB (10) it is not the mandate of the Section that the housing project must be on a vacant plot of land having minimum area of one acre and that where a new housing project

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD vs. ADDL.DIT,

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

property by the Board is subject to the rules made by the State Government under the KHB Act [section 38]. 2.6 As per section 24 of KHB Act, the State Government can acquire land for the purpose of development, and pay compensation for such compulsory acquisition. The Board cannot decide what land to acquire and how much to compensate

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

property by the Board is subject to the rules made by the State Government under the KHB Act [section 38]. 2.6 As per section 24 of KHB Act, the State Government can acquire land for the purpose of development, and pay compensation for such compulsory acquisition. The Board cannot decide what land to acquire and how much to compensate

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

10 of 17 deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 1,40,00,000/- and Rs. 1,02,50,000/-respectively. On perusal of the purchase deed dated 28/06/2014, it is found that the aggregate consideration for the residential property mentioned at ITEM #1 has been paid

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property”. Whereas, the rental income from equipment was considered as “income from other sources” by the assessee. The A.O., however, reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” and disallowed standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act for the following two reasons, namely, (i) the assessee is not the owner of the property