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

House Property Let out properties Property] 1089, Vishnuvardha raod, 24,000 Gross annual value 24,000 Less - Municipal taxes Net annual value NIL Deductions 24,000 Standard deduction u/s 24(a) 7,200 Net Income from Property] 16,800 Propertv2 Gross annual value 18,000 Less - Municipal taxes NIL Net annual value Deductions 18,000 Standard deduction

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

100 TTJ 1039 :- holding that\nshare in a house per se is not a single ownership.\ne) CIT vs Kapil Nagpal (HC Delhi), ITA 609/2014, Date of\ndecision: 1109- 2015 benefit of section 54F cannot be\ndenied if assessee is not exclusive owner of more than one\nproperty at the time of transfer\nf) Dy. CIT v. Dawood Abdulhussain Gandhi

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

section 54/54F of the Act. The essence of the said provision is whether the assessee who received capital gains has invested in a residential house. Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions are not complete

SRI SURESH.C,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2006-07

100/-. The sale of 14 flats to the developer by the Assessee admittedly gave raise to Short term Capital Gain (STCG). On acquiring 13 flats under JDA the gain was admittedly Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). The dispute raised in the various grounds of appeal before the Tribunal is with regard to computation of STCG and LTCG

M/S. KHADEER AHMED KHAN,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. Khadeer Ahmed Khan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.42, Doddkallasandara, Income-Tax, Kankapura Main Road, Vs. Circle – 4(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 062. Bengaluru. Pan : Aavpk 1742 Q Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2021

100 feet Road, BTM Layout, Bangalore was a commercial property even during the period relevant to the A.Y 2012-13." 13. It was submitted by learned AR that the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.20 to 4.22 has discussed the issue and held that the new Asset purchased at Page 16 of 36 No. 8/1, Kattigenahalli Bangalore was commercial property

BHAGYA MAHANTESH KHODANPUR ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhagya Mahantesh Khodanpur, Income Tax Officer, Indu Arcade, Vithoba Galli, Ward-2(1), Durgadbail, Vs. Hubballi. Hubballi-580020. Pan No : Apxpk0150P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Bhagya Mahantesh Khodanpur Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) (In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2015-16 On 28/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 29/12/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurugram U/S. 250 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2025 Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Addition Of Rs. 4,42,500/- Is Bad In Law & 2. Liable To Be Deleted.

100 Income from other sources Bank interest 1,075 GTI 2,00,983 Less: deduction U/s. 80C 41,239 Returned 1,59,740 income 6. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee’s claim stating that KSFC had given the loan to the assessee to set-up Steel Fabrication Unit. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee has utilized this amount

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income. Accordingly, ground no. 19 of the Assessee is allowed. 18. The Ground no. 20 of the Appeal is with respect to the correct carry forward of losses. The Assessee has computed the carry forward of the losses

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

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

100 and above can be transferred only by through a registered conveyance Deed. The Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd v State of Haryana [2012] 340 ITR 1 (SC) has held that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

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

100 and above can be transferred only by through a registered conveyance Deed. The Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd v State of Haryana [2012] 340 ITR 1 (SC) has held that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

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

100 and above can be transferred only by through a registered conveyance Deed. The Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd v State of Haryana [2012] 340 ITR 1 (SC) has held that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

M/S SILVER SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

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

Section 234A and 234B of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

100/-. Aggrieved, the assessee had filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in which only the addition of Rs.6,42,21,000/- and levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act are agitated, in addition to the addition of Rs.7,55,85,800/- made by the AO on protective basis. 2.1 The appellant's first appeal

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

section 263 of the income tax act, it was determined at ₹ 131,358,751/– . The only addition that has been made by the learned assessing officer is income from house property of ₹ 100

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SOMCHAND KANJI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri. Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-5(2)(2), Bangalore. .Appellant Vs. Shri Somchand Kanji, (Rept. By Hiten Somchand Ladhad) No.43, 2Nd Main Road, New Tharagupet, Bangalore. . Respondent Pan – Aezpk 6069E. Appellant By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Jcit Respondent By : Shri G.S Prashanth, C.A Date Of Hearing : 26-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 2-05-2018

house de hors these facilities. These facilities could come in due course and make the property more habitable. The section does not lay down any standards of habitation like existence of civic amenities etc. Besides the above, the undisputed factual position is that there was a constructed shed of 100

MR. SRIDHAR MURTHY S,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sridhar Murthy S Vs The Income Tax Officer Karle Zenith, 100 Ft Kemapura Nfac, Delhi Main Road, Kasaba Holbli Nagavara Village Bengaluru 560043 Pan – Awzps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Rama Raju, Ca Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Nfac, Delhi/Cit(A)’S Order Dated 28.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) , Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities On Facts & Circumstances Of Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.2,19,796/- Under The Provisions Of Section 270A Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

100 Ft Kemapura NFAC, Delhi Main road, Kasaba Holbli Nagavara Village Bengaluru 560043 PAN – AWZPS8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri N. Rama Raju, CA Revenue by: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT Date of hearing: 27.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed

M/S GODHA REALTORS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

100 and above or reversion of other intangible thing can be made only by a registered instrument. It is undisputable that an agreement to sale does not convey a property from one person to another, either in present or even in future. An agreement to sale an immovable property is a bilateral contract under which the two parties