SHIVAKUMAR KHENY (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

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

property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, one residential house in India, then, instead of the capital gain being charged

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

section 148 of the Act, return of income was filed declaring Total Income of Rs. 1,17,59,366.00. The Total income comprised of Income from House Property, Business income and Income for Other Sources offered for taxation in the return of income originally filed earlier and Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 1,15,74,390.00. 7. After

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

property\nbut cannot be recognised as the single owner.\nc) Shivnarayan Chowdary vs. CIT (108 ITR 104) (Luck.) : part\nshare is not to be reckoned as \"owned\". in the said case\nthe assessee was only a part owner of the two residential\nproperties, they held that he could not be said as owning\na 7 residential house as required

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

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

108,100,000 Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition The aforesaid property was purchased for a sum of Rs.9,00,00,000/- in an auction and possession of the same was taken on 26.10.2007. Accordingly the Indexed Cost of Acquisition is calculated as : [Rs.9,00,00,000/- x 711/551] 116,134,301 Less: Cost of Improvement a) Stamp duty & Registration Charges

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

108,100,000 Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition The aforesaid property was purchased for a sum of Rs.9,00,00,000/- in an auction and possession of the same was taken on 26.10.2007. Accordingly the Indexed Cost of Acquisition is calculated as : [Rs.9,00,00,000/- x 711/551] 116,134,301 Less: Cost of Improvement a) Stamp duty & Registration Charges

Y. MANJULA REDDY vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 54F of the Act in the light of law laid down by Delhi High Court in ‘CIT Vs. GITA DUGGA’, (2013) 257 CTR (DEL.) 208. The Tribunal has failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in her appeal. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed. The matter

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-10(2), BANGALORE vs. SMT. Y MANJULA REDDY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 54F of the Act in the light of law laid down by Delhi High Court in ‘CIT Vs. GITA DUGGA’, (2013) 257 CTR (DEL.) 208. The Tribunal has failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in her appeal. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed. The matter

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI MAHESH SURYANARAYANAN LINGAM ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz

house property and other sources. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s.54 and 54F under the head capital gains. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) was issued. In response thereto the assessee filed copy of the sale deed for sale and purchase of the property during the year, supporting ITA.2092/Bang/2017 Page - 3 statements

PRADIP KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(7), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

house property sold for ₹61,00,000/-on 07.07.2010, Reliance is placed on CIT v. Kulwant Rai [291 ITR 36 (Delhi)). Page 2 of 5 2. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ₹ 29,15,000/- was deposited in the bank on the very date of execution of the sale deed (07.07.2010), clearly establishing a nexus between the sale consideration

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

House Property or income under the head Other Sources, being sub leased rental income, and the subleased rental income is taxable without any Page 52 of 55 IT(TP)A No.517 & 570/Bang/2015 adjustment against the business expenditure of STPI units. Accordingly a sum of Rs.1,31,20,320/- is brought to tax under the head Other Sources." 26. The assessee

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4 Ireland ("Google''),and Google Online India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 1st Floor, Prestige Sigma, No. 3 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560 001 ("Distributor''). WHEREAS 1. Google wishes to enter into the Distribution Agreement for its AdWords Program with Distributor; 2. Whereas Google

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4 Ireland ("Google''),and Google Online India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 1st Floor, Prestige Sigma, No. 3 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560 001 ("Distributor''). WHEREAS 1. Google wishes to enter into the Distribution Agreement for its AdWords Program with Distributor; 2. Whereas Google

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4 Ireland ("Google''),and Google Online India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 1st Floor, Prestige Sigma, No. 3 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560 001 ("Distributor''). WHEREAS 1. Google wishes to enter into the Distribution Agreement for its AdWords Program with Distributor; 2. Whereas Google