ACIT, MANGALORE vs. SRI. J. KRISHNA PALEMAR, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

house property purchased by the assessee as per the purchase deed is not a residential property. (8) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the use of residential property for any other purpose does not make the property as non residential. Hence the proviso to section 54F is clearly

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

house property and other sources filed return of income electronically for the assessment year 2010-11 on 13.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.54,34,810/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted on 2.3.2015 at the business premises of the assessee. During the survey, the assessee was asked to explain the present

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section 13(1)(c) and (d) of that Act, the said rate will not apply: to the business profits of such trusts which are otherwise chargeable to fax. In other word, where such a trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1) (c) or (d) of the Act, the maximum

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section 13(1)(c) and (d) of that Act, the said rate will not apply: to the business profits of such trusts which are otherwise chargeable to fax. In other word, where such a trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1) (c) or (d) of the Act, the maximum

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

Housing and Urban Development Department, the\nCommission for Industrial Development and Direcotr of Industries and\nCommerce, Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka State Industrial\nInvestment and Development Corporation Ltd., Chairman, Karnataka\nPollution Control Board, the Director of Town Planning, the Managing\nDirector, Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd.\nand the Managing Director, Karnataka Financial State Corporation are ex-\nofficio members

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

section 44AD of the Act. However, the AO observed\nthat the agreement with the SBI is a composite agreement. The\nassessee is not into the business of renting out properties and as\nsuch, the income from maintenance charges received has direct\nnexus with the property and derived from the property only and\nhence the amount received as per the lease

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

Housing and Urban Development Department, the\nCommission for Industrial Development and Direcotr of Industries and\nCommerce, Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka State Industrial\nInvestment and Development Corporation Ltd., Chairman, Karnataka\nPollution Control Board, the Director of Town Planning, the Managing\nDirector, Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd.\nand the Managing Director, Karnataka Financial State Corporation are ex-\nofficio members

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

section 80IA of the Act and government schemes for development of Industrial Parks in the country. SLPs filed in this case by the Department have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In a subsequent judgment dated 30.04.2014 in ITA No 76 & 78/2012 in the case of CIT vs. Information Technology Park Ltd.2, the Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed

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 held under trust wholly for charitable purposes in the case of charitable organizations and for determining accumulation of income required thereof keeping in view provisions of Section 11 , and secondly while computing the income in commercial parlance by taking into effect depreciation expenses on such capital assets under Section 32 of the 1961 Act. Section 11 falls within Chapter

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

11. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and on facts, by disregarding the fact that the Appellant has offered the gift of shares received from ROl for taxes under "income from other sources" at a highest tax rate of 30% under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, thus ignoring the fact that the intention was never

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

section 11(6) of the Act, the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.65,39,240/- was also disallowed and taxed accordingly. Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total income of Rs.51,93,58,124/- while passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 26.12.2022.\n\n4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order

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

M/S. HANUMANTHAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Houses of Parliament.” 43. The enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 105 consists of the following thirteen Parliamentary enactments, namely: “THE FOURTH SCHEDULE [See section 105] LIST OF ENACTMENTS REGULATING LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT 1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

properties, to contract, to sue or be sued and maintained its own fund. When specific exemption to such authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961, was withdrawn, it sought relief under Article 289. The Hon'ble Supreme Court denied recourse to Article 289 as due to its enacting statue, it has a legal personality distinct from the state

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

Houses of\nParliament.\"\n43. The enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth\nSchedule referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 105 consists of the\nfollowing thirteen Parliamentary enactments, namely:\n“THE FOURTH SCHEDULE\n[See section 105]\nLIST OF ENACTMENTS REGULATING LAND ACQUISITION AND\nREHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT\n1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

11 are entirely the matters left to the Assessing Officer to decide. The Tribunal had allowed the case of the assessee with the finding that none of the conditions under section 12AA(3) were violated and, therefore, the satisfaction which was arrived at by the Commissioner was not justified. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order

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:-

house property". Annual value how determined. Page 11 of 15 Section 23. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual

M/S. C R NAGAPPA AND SONS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

Accordingly these Grounds raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

house property”. In the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the said deduction was rejected. 2.1 The assessee filed an application under section 154 electronically for rectification. In the rectification application assessee withdrew the deduction claimed under section 24(b) of the Act, but claimed exemption under section 11