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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY vs. SRI B RUDRA GOWDA , BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and the appeal by revenue stands dismissed

property against the claim by the third party as capital expenditure;  By levying of interest under section 234B of Rs. 3,44,80,540/-. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in respect of Corporate Social Responsibility as well as Reclamation and Rehabilitation expenditure but treated the legal expenses

B RUDRA GOUDA ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and the appeal by revenue stands dismissed

property against the claim by the third party as capital expenditure;  By levying of interest under section 234B of Rs. 3,44,80,540/-. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in respect of Corporate Social Responsibility as well as Reclamation and Rehabilitation expenditure but treated the legal expenses

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

House property and Income from other sources. 3.1 The Income from Other Sources (`IFOS) included interest income of Rs. 3,30,282/- and income of Kantilal Jain, Bangalore Page 4 of 20 Rs. 4,78,000/- out of LIC maturity proceeds. Total tax payable in the return of income amounted to Rs. 3,34,331/-, which was paid via advance

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 37(1) of the Act and not otherwise. 31. For the reasons afore stated, we are of the considered view that substantial question law formulated herein is to be answered in the negative i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 10.5.3. In the instant case also, the assessee has contributed funds at the specific request

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 37(1) of the Act and not otherwise. 31. For the reasons afore stated, we are of the considered view that substantial question law formulated herein is to be answered in the negative i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 10.5.3. In the instant case also, the assessee has contributed funds at the specific request

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

section as per true nature and character of income and not merely on the basis of classification given by the assessee. ITA No. 202 & 203/Bang/2019 Page 7 of 10 7. Having regard to the Circular and judicial precedents referred to and relied upon, it is manifest that the eligibility of deduction u/s. 80IAB is governed by the true character

SHRI MUNIYAPPA NARASHIMAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

10(37) of the Act was rightly refused by the Revenue authorities. 12. In so far as the deduction under section 54 of the Act is concerned, there is no dispute that the assessee purchased new property but the deduction under section 54 of the Act is available only when the long-term capital gain is available from the transfer

NIRMAN SONESTAA DEVELOPERS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

House and for the purpose of selling the major portions of the said building in the form of flats to various customers. The assessee got the original building plans sanctioned and commenced the constructions. The assessee had no right to make deviations from the sanctioned plan or to continue the construction after the sanction had lapsed. Any constructions thus made

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.

37 of the Act can be summarised as below: a) Such expenditure should not be covered under the specific section i.e. sections 30 to 36. b) Expenditure should not be of capital nature c) The expenditure should be incurred during the previous year. d) The expenditure should not be of personal nature. e) The expenditure should have been incurred wholly

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act.” 6. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee argued that the provisions of section 50C are applicable prospectively

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

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

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

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

section 263 of the Act dated 02.07.2019 was issued by the PCIT. To the aforesaid show cause notice, the assessee submitted a reply dated 21.07.2019 which is as follows: Residential house property at No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, 1) Yellachenahalli is my self acquired property, I am declaring the same in my individual tax return from the beginning. Copy of the return

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

10 ITA No.293/Bang/2020. Dr.Sheela Puttabuddi. payment for and behalf of the assessee and the stamp duty also has been paid by him which clearly establish the fact that the advance paid by the assessee to Sri. B. Suresh was with an intention to reinvest the proceeds of capital gains in acquiring a new property and consequently the conditions as specified

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

37, PID # 51- 14-37, built with RCC roof, red-oxide flooring, teak wood doors and windows, the ITEM # 1 & 2 of Page 9 of 17 SCHEDULE PROPERTY, built on site measuring East to West 60 ft., and North to South 40 ft., measuring in all 2400 sft., and bounded on: EAST BY : 1ST MAIN ROAD WEST BY : PRIVATE PROPERTY

DCIT vs. M/S GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Golden Gate Properties Ltd. No.820, Golden House, 80 Feet Road, 8Th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095. … Respondent Pan: Aaacg 5284 H

House, 80 Feet Road, 8th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095. … Respondent PAN: AAACG 5284 H Appellant by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR). Respondent by: Shri V.Narendra Sharma, Advocate. Date of hearing : 19/11/2015. Date of pronouncement: 29/12/2015. O R D E R Per VIJAY PAL RAO, JM: This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 30/09/2013