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

section 54/54F of the Act. The essence of the said provision is whether the assessee who received capital gains has invested in a residential house. Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions are not complete

M/S. C R NAGAPPA AND SONS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

Accordingly these Grounds raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

house property” instead the deduction under section 11(1)(a) of the Act was computed on the gross receipts. 6.2 The Ld.AR thus submitted that, assessee in the revised return claimed deduction of ₹72,66,663/- under section 11(1)(a) of the Act, in the application filed under section 154

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

Section 154 of the Act determining the total loss at Rs.18,914 as against the returned loss of Rs.15,51,760 on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned authorities are not justified in law in treating the business income of the appellant received from the temporarily letting out commercial complex as income from house property

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

154/- being cost of acquisition of residential property on Site No. 839/21, 37th F Cross, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011 on 10.2.2011 for an amount of Rs. 1,52,02,905/- and construction of residential house on the same property value of Rs. 3,12,13,249/-. 2.1 The Ld.AO observed that assessee also constructed a residential house

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

House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H. Nagin Khincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R. Date of Hearing 04 07 2022 & 03 11 2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 11 2022 ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

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

House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H. Nagin Khincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R. Date of Hearing 04 07 2022 & 03 11 2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 11 2022 ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

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

House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H. Nagin Khincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R. Date of Hearing 04 07 2022 & 03 11 2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 11 2022 ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House property Rs. 4,19,043/- B. Business Income Rs. 4,50,000/- C. Short term capital gain taxable at normal rate Rs. 58,95,682/- (Rs. 63,96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461) D. Interest Income Rs. 1,16,275/- Total (A+B+C+D) Rs. 68,81,000/- 4.2 Further, the assessee against

M/S SOBHA INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

house property income of Rs 42,00,000/- (Rs 60 lakhs less 30% for repairs) since the interest payment would not be covered as a deduction u/s 24 in the absence of the so-called "loan" appearing in its books prior to 1.4.2006 at all; and in any case the so-called trade advances cannot automatically be termed a loan

M/S SOBHA GLAZING & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

house property income of Rs 42,00,000/- (Rs 60 lakhs less 30% for repairs) since the interest payment would not be covered as a deduction u/s 24 in the absence of the so-called "loan" appearing in its books prior to 1.4.2006 at all; and in any case the so-called trade advances cannot automatically be termed a loan

M/S SOBHA INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

house property income of Rs 42,00,000/- (Rs 60 lakhs less 30% for repairs) since the interest payment would not be covered as a deduction u/s 24 in the absence of the so-called "loan" appearing in its books prior to 1.4.2006 at all; and in any case the so-called trade advances cannot automatically be termed a loan

ARUN KUDUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan S. & Shri Soundararajan K.

house property. 4. The learned CIT-A on perusal of the rectification application under Section 154 of the Act noticed

SRI. SANJAY RAMPRAKASH SAXENA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Sanjay Ramprakash Saxena, Dcit, G1, Smr Devmuk Cpc, Sy. No.97/104, 9Th Main, Vs. Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Vijaya Bank Layout, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aozps 7209 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bharath Shetty, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023

house property of Rs.15,165/- meaning thereby the gross total income declared by the assessee of Rs.16,22,880/- and claimed the deduction under chapter VI A of Rs.1 lakh under section 80C, 80CC, 80CCD and Rs. 16,429/- u/s 80D, the net taxable income was shown as Rs.15,06,451/-. During the course of processing of return under section

VISHNUMPET SUNDARESAN VENKATESH,BENGALURU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ACIT CIRCLE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2007-08 Shri. Vishnumpet Sundaresan Venkatesh, Vs. Acit, 42, Prestige Woodside, Circle – 6(1), Off Doddaballapur Main Road, Bengaluru. Avalahalli, Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aajpv 5556 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Venkatesh Sundaresan, Assessee Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2023

154 of the Act, only on account of non-granting of the deduction under section 80C of the Act and loss incurred under the head ‘income from house property

SIR ANIL DEV ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assesseee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013 – 14 Shree Anil Dev, C/O M/S Suresh & Co., Chartered Accountants, Dcit Circle – 2 (2) (1), #43/16, ‘Srinidhi’, 1St Floor, Vs. Bengaluru Surveyor Street, Basavangudi, Bengaluru - 560004 Pan : Aeppd4791L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree Nitish Ranjan, C. A. Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020 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) – 10 Bengaluru Dated 10.01.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds But Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That As Per These Grounds, This Is The Only Effective Grievance Of The Assessee That The Ao & Cit (A) Were Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee For Deduction U/S 54F. Page 2 Of 14

section shall apply where -- (a) the assessee, -- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or. (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset; within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or constructs any residential house, other

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property and business income (renumeration and share of profit from partnership firms). For the AY 2021-22, the assessee filed his return of income on 15/03/2022 by declaring total income of Rs.5,07,94,880/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 28/03/2022. Subsequently, the rectification order u/s. 154

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property and business income (renumeration and share of profit from partnership firms). For the AY 2021-22, the assessee filed his return of income on 15/03/2022 by declaring total income of Rs.5,07,94,880/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 28/03/2022. Subsequently, the rectification order u/s. 154

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

house utilization and treated as part of block of assets should be allowed, despite the same being in the nature of royalty as per Explanation to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and no TDS u/s 194 of the Act having been deducted, section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" [Question of law No.2 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 - (Department