DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

property income. xxiii. Pursuant to the same, the learned assessing officer passed an assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 263 of the act dated the 29 December 2019 assessing the income of the appellant at ₹ 131,358,751 by making the several adjustment to the income from house

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

section 143(2) on the basis of the aforesaid return which was non-est in law. The ratio decidendi of this judgement is that the AO is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) at all, in a case where the assessee filed the return beyond the time limit prescribed for furnishing such return. It follows from this judgement

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

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

property was not let for the entire year.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "44AD", "23(1)(a)", "23(1)(c)", "24(a)", "22", "28", "143(3)" ], "issues": "1. Whether maintenance charges received by the assessee are business income or income from house

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

143(3) for A.y.2009-10 was also concluded treating the rental income received under Income from house property and not business income. If your goodself still propose to bring the income offered under house property as business income, depreciation on the said asset should also be allowed. This is explicitly made clear by Explanation 5 to Section

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, income from business and income from other ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli sources. This return of income was processed under section 143

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, income from business and income from other ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli sources. This return of income was processed under section 143

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Company supra, in support of the contention that search under Section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act but it is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. There is no cavil on this proposition that search under Section 132 or requisition under 132A

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Company supra, in support of the contention that search under Section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act but it is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. There is no cavil on this proposition that search under Section 132 or requisition under 132A

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Company supra, in support of the contention that search under Section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act but it is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. There is no cavil on this proposition that search under Section 132 or requisition under 132A

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

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in Memo of Appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Benches, Bangalore, which reads as under:- A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek “1. The impugned Appellate Order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. The NFAC committed

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

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 11.3.2014. Now the contention of the Ld. A.R. is that there was no seized material relevant to this assessment year so as to reopen the concluded assessment and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI. K. SHANKAR NAIK,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3, DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am I.T.A. No.454/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri K Shankar Naik, Vs. The Ito Ward-3, Davanagare 873-7-23, Jayanagar, C Block, Nituvalli, Davanagare. [Pan:Cnzps 2435M]

House loan from Bank of Baroda Rs.19 lakhs ii) Funds from HUF agricultural income Rs.16.85 lakhs iii) Salary savings Rs. 3.15 lakhs Total Rs.39 lakhs The Assessing Officer verified the claim of the assessee as regards source of Rs.16.85 lakhs being agricultural income and did not accept estimation of agricultural income for the period 1990-91. The Assessing Officer observed

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 24 provides the deduction from income from house property. There is no dispute that the assessee had earned income from house property. The determination of annual value or the rent is also not in dispute. The Assessing Officer had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment