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

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

13. Insofar as the limitation ground raised by the assessee, in ground no. 2, we have perused the letter sent by the assessee on 17/07/2023 which was extracted by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order at page number 8 from which it is clear that the assessee had prayed to allow the appeal following the judgment

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

13. Insofar as the limitation ground raised by the assessee, in ground no. 2, we have perused the letter sent by the assessee on 17/07/2023 which was extracted by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order at page number 8 from which it is clear that the assessee had prayed to allow the appeal following the 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

8 of 12 the income to be treated as income from house property then the assessee is entitled to deduction under chapter (income from house property) then the deduction forming part of chapter IV computation of total income from house property u/s. 24(2), 25, 25A, 25Aa, 27 etc. are available and if we hold that the income from

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property. 13,47,060 5. The CIT(A) erred in holding that section 44AD does not apply to the maintenance charges received from State Bank of India. 13,47,060 6. Without prejudice, the Appellant's claim seeking deduction of all expenses against the maintenance charges received from State Bank of India ought to have been allowed. 13

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

13. Based on the facts and circumstances, the learned CT(A) has erred, in law and on facts, by denying Page 4 of 31 exemption of Rs 134,139,988 claimed by the Appellant under section 54F of the Act without appreciating the detailed factual/ technical submissions furnished in support of the claim. 14. The learned CIT(A) has failed

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

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

8. The second issue concerns itself with the allowability of interest paid on housing loan amounting to Rs.18,38,292/- towards cost of apartment. The AO observed that the assessee has already claimed deduction under section 24(b) of Rs. 4,53,628/- as interest on housing loan while computing his income from the house property. Thus, the AO disallowed

MR. ARUNKUMAR NATHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

8 Therefore, in the case of more than one properties are purchased by the assessee, the option is available with the assessee to claim benefit under Section 54 in respect of the residential house purchased for the assessee's own residence. On this point the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nathu Hansraj

M/S K.BABU (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. K. Babu (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2, Dollars Colony, Ward – 7(2)(3), 1St Cross, 2Nd Main, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan: Aaggk 0809 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

8 of 12 9. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it very clear that the property sold is referred to as original asset in the section. That original asset in described as buildings or lands appurtenant thereto and being a residential house. Therefore, it is not mere a residential house." ' The residential house may' include buildings or lands appurtenant

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

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 12 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 13 of 37 07. The ld. CIT (E) issued a show cause notice on 6.6.2019 which was replied to. After considering the reply

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

8 ITA No.203/Bang/2022. Sri.Yash Vardhan Arya. that meaning and interpretation of the words 'property is let' cannot be 'property actually let out'. Thus, if a property is held with an intention to let out in the relevant year coupled with efforts made for letting it out, it could be said that such a property is a let out property

M/S. INDRAPRASTHA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year :2011-12 M/S. Indraprastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Prestige Corniche, Circle –11(4), No.62/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aabci 2643 B Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2020 O R D E R

8 also deductible in computing under the head income from house property. The said Circular is reproduced below: “Fresh loan raised to repay original loan taken for constructing/ buying property - Whether interest payable on second loan would also be admissible as a deduction under clause (vi) of sub-section (1) 1. Section 24(1)(vi ) provides that where the property

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

13] Now the question arose as to what would be the correct and workable interpretation of the words 'property is let' in clause (c) of section 23 (1). For this, it is to be determined as to whether actual letting out is a must for a property to fall within the purview of clause (c) of section 23(1). [Para

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:-

8. In that case, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court followed a judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 25 ITR 265 and reproduced a relevant para of that judgment of Page 9 of 15 Hon’ble apex court and for ready reference, we also reproduce that para

M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

8 ITA No.982/Bang/2019. M/s.Embassy Knowledge Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd. viz: whether a particular letting is business or not. According to us, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chennai Properties is that if the letting out of a building can properly said to be carrying on a business, the rental income should be assessed under the head "Profits

SMT. NETHRAVATHI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Nethravathi, No.2, 8Th Cross, 1St Main, Sampangiram Nagar, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aafpn6032J. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Warad – 2(3)(3), Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri P Dinesh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : -04-2018 O R D E R

property is used for residence. The four residential flats cannot be construed as four residential houses for the purpose of Section 54. It has to be construed only as "a residential house" and the assessee is entitled to the benefit accordingly. 13. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal as well as the appellate authority were justified in holding