DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

Property, Bangalore.\nThe capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence

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

section 27(iiib) of the Act. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, where the income may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be treated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business of the assessee. What is the test which has to be applied to determine whether

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

151,74,000/- and concluded the assessment.\nPage 3 of 13\nITA No.825/Bang/2024\nJagajit Singh Bajwa, Bangalore\nWherein in her order page No. 8 in computation it has been\nmentioned as follows:\n1. Income from House Properties as declared (-) Rs. 1,59,260/-\n2. Income form Business as declared\nRs. 14,88,731/-\n3. Income from Other sources as declared

SHRI. KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed

Property Construction (P.)\nLtd. vs. ACIT [2025] 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bombay) [08-09-2025]\nhas held that [ AY 2017-18]\n“9. In the present case, the period of three years from the end of the A.Y. 2017-18 fell\nfor completion on 31st March 2021. As the expiry date fell during the time period of\n20th March

M/S CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2003-04 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

house property in the order of rectification is not in accordance with law. 8. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the status of the appellant is firm and any receipts or income has to be treated as income from business as per the provisions of and circumstances of the case. 9. The order passed by the learned authorities without

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property” being the specific head for taxation of such rental income in terms of section 22 to 27 of the I.T.Act and also based on the principles laid down in various judicial precedents. It was further contended that the rental income from partial letting out of factory building and rent from letting out of equipment are separate transactions being

M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property” being the specific head for taxation of such rental income in terms of section 22 to 27 of the I.T.Act and also based on the principles laid down in various judicial precedents. It was further contended that the rental income from partial letting out of factory building and rent from letting out of equipment are separate transactions being

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property” being the specific head for taxation of such rental income in terms of section 22 to 27 of the I.T.Act and also based on the principles laid down in various judicial precedents. It was further contended that the rental income from partial letting out of factory building and rent from letting out of equipment are separate transactions being

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property” being the specific head for taxation of such rental income in terms of section 22 to 27 of the I.T.Act and also based on the principles laid down in various judicial precedents. It was further contended that the rental income from partial letting out of factory building and rent from letting out of equipment are separate transactions being

M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property” being the specific head for taxation of such rental income in terms of section 22 to 27 of the I.T.Act and also based on the principles laid down in various judicial precedents. It was further contended that the rental income from partial letting out of factory building and rent from letting out of equipment are separate transactions being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (274 CTR 122), wherein held as under: “Section 153A starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon, the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section