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 37 commission paid : 29421834 Depreciation as per Profit and Loss Account : 140067258 TOTAL ADDITIONS U/s. 28 to 44DA 169489092 Expenses considered under other head / Exp related to Exempt income Exp. Considered under other head-Interest : 278952800 Exp. Considered under other head-Property Tax : 133907498 Total Expenses considered under other Head/ 412860298 Exp Related to Exempt Income TOTAL ADDITION

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore Page 21 of 66 produced details of RTC which have been reproduced in the earlier part of this order. 19. Thus, the assessee made a plea that the said land

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

14. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that as on the date of transfer of the shares of Nephrolife, the Appellant co-owned only one residential house in India and that the co-owned property should not be construed as one house property for the purpose of claiming benefit 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 14, that is to say, income from salaries, income 27 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. from house property, profits and gains

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also produced details of RTC which have been reproduced in the earlier part of this order. 19. Thus, the assessee made a plea that the said land was subject of cultivation 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

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

section. Scope of Income is defined u/s 5. The heads of income is enumerated u/s 14. There are five heads of income, namely income from Salaries, Income from House Property

SHAMBALA PROPERTIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLR-12(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Shambala Properties Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.7, Rest House Road, Circle – 12(3) Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. (Presently – Dcit – 7(1)(2)), Pan No : Aahcs 1313 C Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Elamurusu G, Jcit (Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020

Section 14 in Chapter - IV of the Income Tax Act provides heads of income namely (a) salary (b) (....) (c) income from house property

S.M. VINOD (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SRI. S M MUNIYAPPA),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

section 54 and 54F of the Act. 4) That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the residential property in Jayanagar has to be considered as one residential house since it is a duplex house containing single Khatha number, single Property Identification (PID) number. Each of the above grounds is independent of one another

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

house property as provided in section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal Nos.5, 6 & 7 raised by the assessee are allowed.” In the present case, the facts involved are similar to that of Smt. Indu Chandra (supra). So, respectfully following the order

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 56(2)(vi) w.e.f. 1.4.2010 therefore, the said provision is also not applicable for the year under consideration. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandni Buchar (supra) while dealing an identical issue has held in paras 2 & 3 as under : “ 2. There is categorical finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income

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 and not under the head income from business because had it been the case of the AO or CIT (A), Annual Value would have been brought to tax and deduction would have been allowed of interest u/s 24 and only depreciation would have been disallowed. 11. Now we decide the issue about allowability of interest

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

house property, it was not claiming depreciation on such properties which were let out by the firm. Further, while business losses were set off against the property income for the same year, depreciation on such properties let out were not set off. 35. It was submitted that during the scrutiny asst. proceedings

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

house has been acquired within 3 Smt. Rehana Abdul Jabbar, Mangaluru Page 5 of 14 years from the date of sale of the property located at Crystal Arcade and therefore the assessee is in compliance with all the conditions laid down in section

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, 19120 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 02, Ireland, and Google Online India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Prestige Sigma, 1st Floor, NO.3 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001, India ('Go ogle India') and having a branch office at RMZ Future, Block A, 4'" Floor Plot No. 14, Road

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, 19120 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 02, Ireland, and Google Online India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Prestige Sigma, 1st Floor, NO.3 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore 560001, India ('Go ogle India') and having a branch office at RMZ Future, Block A, 4'" Floor Plot No. 14, Road

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

section 24(b) of the Act to the case of the assessee. 14. None of the reasons assigned by the revenue authorities for denying the claim of the Assessee for deduction of interest paid to Mrs.Kaveri Bai, while computing income under the head income from house property

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

house property", other than the new asset.' 14. The aforesaid provision was examined by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 221 (Karn). In the context of section