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

120/-. The AR of the assessee further submitted that the assessee had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 15/12/2017 & invested the capital gain in the construction of residential house on a vacant land purchased in the name of his wife on 24/08/2017. The construction of the residential House was completed

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

120/-\n3.4 Whereas, while totalling, the loss of House property income\ntreated as positive income accordingly it is added and instead of\narriving at GTI of Rs. 166,30,917/- had arrived at Rs.\n169,49,437/- which is increased by Rs. 318,520/- which is twice\nthe figure of Loss of Rs. 159,260/- because of positive addition

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house and make a profit, pay Caesar what is due to him. But if you buy or build another subject to the conditions of section 54(1) you are exempt. The purpose is plain ; the symmetry is simple, the language is plain. Why mutilate the meaning by lexical legalism. We see no stress in the section on "cash and carry

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

house by any other mode. The word "purchase" appearing in section 54 had come for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. T.N. Arvinda Reddy (120 ITR 46) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the word "purchase" appearing in section 54(1) has to be given its common meaning i.e. buy for a price

CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

house], has to be complied as they cannot be overlooked. In future the Government may consider amending the Act and extending the timelines as laid down in Section 54F from the date of approval of Sanction Plan by the Govt. Agencies. Based on the above discussion of facts and circumstances, the ld CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the decision taken

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

120.\nAn objection to such jurisdiction can be raised in terms of section\n124(2). In terms of sub-section (3) of section 124, right to raise such\nobjection shall be foregone beyond the stages mentioned therein. The\nsaid provisions are clearly concerning with the dispute of the assessee\nwith respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer

ESTATE OF LATE DR. S. ZAKAULLA MASOOD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54 of the Act, if capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being buildings or land appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from Page 2 of 7 house property" (referred to in Sec.54 of the Act as the original asset), and the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property. Since this Assessee Company has nothing to do with the preparation of the same, it would be wholly unjust and unfair to conclude that this Assessee Company has actually incurred this expenditure out of its own funds and add the same as undisclosed income of the Assessee Company. 46. The fact that the AO has also protectively assessed this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property. Since this Assessee Company has nothing to do with the preparation of the same, it would be wholly unjust and unfair to conclude that this Assessee Company has actually incurred this expenditure out of its own funds and add the same as undisclosed income of the Assessee Company. 46. The fact that the AO has also protectively assessed this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

property. Since this Assessee Company has nothing to do with the preparation of the same, it would be wholly unjust and unfair to conclude that this Assessee Company has actually incurred this expenditure out of its own funds and add the same as undisclosed income of the Assessee Company. 46. The fact that the AO has also protectively assessed this

BHARATH CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE -1, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

House Property and remaining income earned under head Business & Profession amounting to Rs. 40,23,937/- claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 6) The claim of deduction is duly examined and found that the same is as per provisions of the Act. 7) The case of the assessee falls in the category of providing credit facilities

M/S MANGALA INVESTMENTS LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

house property in the city of Madras, there was no direction to get them revalued under section 16A of the Act. The appellate orders for the years 1970-71 and 1972-73 had only directed the Assessing Officer to "go into the question as to the extent of the land owned by the assessee at No. 64, Luz Church Road

M/S CHITRAKALA INVESTMENT TRADE & BUSINESS FINANCE LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

house property in the city of Madras, there was no direction to get them revalued under section 16A of the Act. The appellate orders for the years 1970-71 and 1972-73 had only directed the Assessing Officer to "go into the question as to the extent of the land owned by the assessee at No. 64, Luz Church Road

M/S SEA ROCK INVESTMENTS LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

house property in the city of Madras, there was no direction to get them revalued under section 16A of the Act. The appellate orders for the years 1970-71 and 1972-73 had only directed the Assessing Officer to "go into the question as to the extent of the land owned by the assessee at No. 64, Luz Church Road

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

120 Taxmann.com 264, following the above decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provisions namely section 10B(i), 10B(5), 10B(6)(ii), and section

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

120 Taxman 11 on similar issue observed and held as under: "6.1. The scheme of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C would show that in cases where the nature and source of investments made by the assessee or the nature and source of acquisition of money, bullion, etc., owned by the assessee or the source of expenditure incurred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHICKAMANGALUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTH , CHIKKAMANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (3), BENGALURU vs. SHRI C J VISHWANTHA, CHICKAMANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property Rs. 67,200 /- ii) Business Income Rs. 1,42,860/- iii) Income from other Sources Rs. 5,042/- --------------------- ITA Nos.1891 to 1896/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 30 Rs. 2,15,102/- Less: Deduction u/s. 80C Rs. 80,354/- ---------------------- Net Income Rs. 1,34,748/- Rounded Off to Rs. 1,34,750/- --------------------- 16. The Ld. AO has completed an Assessment