KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

4. The learned CIT has erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 11(1)(a) at 15% on gross income in accordance with section 11 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. Without prejudice, the CIT has erred in denying exemptions u/s 11 of surplus arising from Pharmacy as business incidental. Where Pharmacy was set up under hospital which

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

4) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that all the above properties are residential in nature as per the purchase deed of the property. These properties are owned by the assessee on the date of transfer of the original asset. (5) Based on the facts and circumstances

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

4 of section 2 or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section `4A) of section 11 tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11 or section 12, as If the relevant income not so exempt were. The income of an association of persons: Provided that

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

4 of section 2 or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section `4A) of section 11 tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11 or section 12, as If the relevant income not so exempt were. The income of an association of persons: Provided that

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

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

4,53,628/- as interest on housing loan while computing his income from the house property. Thus, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 48 towards cost of acquisition to the tune of Rs. 18,38,292/- being interest on housing loan, as the assessee has already availed deduction of interest under section

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

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

11,620/- The case was selected for scrutiny to examine capital gains deduction claimed. During the scrutiny, the AO observed that the assessee has sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.33,81,000/- declaring a long term capital gain of Rs.28,81,917/- after claiming index cost of acquisition of Rs.4,99,083/- and he claimed deduction under section

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

property acquired by KIADB for BMRCL project falls u/s 46 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as such exemption cannot be granted to the assessee. In support of the above contention, the learned DR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri.Ananthaswamy v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. in WP No.1451 of 2018 (judgment

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

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

4 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 5 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 6 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 7 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 8 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 9 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 10 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 11 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page

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

4) of the Act which provides that where the capital gain arises from transfer of property the value of which has been subject to Income-tax u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act, the cost of acquisition of such property shall be deemed to be the value which has been taken in to account for the purpose of the said

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

House, First Cross Central Circle-1 Vs. N.G. Road, Attavar Mangaluru Mangaluru 575 001 Karnataka PAN NO : AAGCM8310E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are for the assessment years

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the appellant had been renovating the property during the financial year 2006-07 and could not have let out the property. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the annual letting value of house property at Langford Road should

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4 Property @ Bull Temple Road 3,82,87,162 3,82,87,162 5 Property @ JP Nagar 2,67,07,891 2,67,07,891 6 Property@ OMBR Layout 19,56,591 19,56,591 3.2 The AO accepted the details of immovable properties furnished by the assessee, however, observed that the assessee has shown rental income from only

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred to in sub- clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this

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:-

4) Where the property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than 29[one house]— (a) the provisions of that sub-section shall apply only in respect of 30[one] of such houses, which the assessee may, at his option, specify in this behalf; (b) the annual value of the house or houses, 31[other than the house

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

11 These submissions are further examined. The assessee had purchased the property in April 2015 He had got into a lease deed in the month of Feb 2016 The claim of he assessee is that the property had remained vacant all through AY 2016- 17. In such a situation the annal lettable value of the property needs to be computed