NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

section 54B of the Act. The amount was kept\nin the nationalized bank and the assessee withdrew amount from the bank and\nincurred expenditure towards construction of the house property. This issue\nhas been put to rest by the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case\nof CIT vs Ramachandra Rao Vs., reported in (2015) 56 taxmann.com 163

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income. Accordingly, ground no. 19 of the Assessee is allowed. 18. The Ground no. 20 of the Appeal is with respect to the correct carry forward of losses. The Assessee has computed the carry forward of the losses

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.

property purchased one year prior to the transfer, which gave rise to the capital gain or may be in the alternative have expressly made the exemption in case of prior purchase, subject to purchase from any advance that might have been received for the transfer of the residential house which resulted in the capital gain. 23. At the cost

VIJAY LAKHMICHAND ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

163/- may be allowed of cost of improvements being permanent fixtures and wall/ ground embedded. We agree with the contention of the assessee as we already held that the expenditure incurred which are permanent fixture, wall/ ground embedded are incurred only in order to make the house habitable and it becomes the part and parcel of building itself which

NISHA VIJAY ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

163/- may be allowed of cost of improvements being permanent fixtures and wall/ ground embedded. We agree with the contention of the assessee as we already held that the expenditure incurred which are permanent fixture, wall/ ground embedded are incurred only in order to make the house habitable and it becomes the part and parcel of building itself which

JAYARAM REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

163 Taxmann 666) • Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (84 Taxmann.com 287) • CIT v. Rakesh Ramani (256 Taxman 299) • P. Balasubramanian v. CIT (33 Taxmann.com 130) • Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. DCIT (32 Taxmann.com 349) 11.12 Thus, the ld. AR concluded by submitting that in the present case there was no incriminating material whatsoever in relation to the assessment years

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

163 Taxmann 666)\n• Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (84 Taxmann.com\n287)\n• CIT v. Rakesh Ramani (256 Taxman 299)\n• P. Balasubramanian v. CIT (33 Taxmann.com 130)\n• Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. DCIT (32 Taxmann.com 349)\n\n11.12 Thus, the Id. AR concluded by submitting that in the present case\nthere was no incriminating material whatsoever

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

163 Taxmann 666)\n• Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (84 Taxmann.com\n287)\n• CIT v. Rakesh Ramani (256 Taxman 299)\n• P. Balasubramanian v. CIT (33 Taxmann.com 130)\n• Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. DCIT (32 Taxmann.com 349)\n11.12 Thus, the Id. AR concluded by submitting that in the present case\nthere was no incriminating material whatsoever in relation

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

163 Taxmann 666)\nBest Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (84 Taxmann.com\n287)\nCIT v. Rakesh Ramani (256 Taxman 299)\nP. Balasubramanian v. CIT (33 Taxmann.com 130)\nSuzlon Energy Ltd. v. DCIT (32 Taxmann.com 349)\n11.12 Thus, the Id. AR concluded by submitting that in the present case\nthere was no incriminating material whatsoever in relation to the\n assessment

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

163 Taxmann 666)\nBest Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (84 Taxmann.com\n287)\nCIT v. Rakesh Ramani (256 Taxman 299)\nP. Balasubramanian v. CIT (33 Taxmann.com 130)\nSuzlon Energy Ltd. v. DCIT (32 Taxmann.com 349)\n11.12 Thus, the Id. AR concluded by submitting that in the present case\nthere was no incriminating material whatsoever in relation to the\n assessment

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(4), BENGALURU

163 Taxmann 666)\n•\nBest Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (84 Taxmann.com\n287)\n•\nCIT v. Rakesh Ramani (256 Taxman 299)\n•\nP. Balasubramanian v. CIT (33 Taxmann.com 130)\n•\nSuzlon Energy Ltd. v. DCIT (32 Taxmann.com 349)\n11.12 Thus, the Id. AR concluded by submitting that in the present case\nthere was no incriminating material whatsoever in relation

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

163, the Madras High Court accepting the plea of the Revenue held as under (Page 168): The facts on record would clearly go to show that the father of the assessee had definitely diverted a portion of the borrowed capital for his own purposes and not for business purposes. In such a case, it cannot be said that there

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

house property and income from other sources. This return was revised on 05.08.2013 at total income of Rs.39,70,830/-. 3. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act (The Act) on 20.03.2025, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.8,83,93,880/-. 4. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee preferred an appeal

SEKHON JAGTAR SINGH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2017-18

housing loan, which was added to the total income of the assessee. As such, the income was determined in the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act at Rs. 58,70,680/- only. As the assessee did not file original return of income, the AO initiated penalty proceedings for underreporting of income, which came to be confirmed

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Co-operative Society Ltd (‘VBEHCSL’) and Syndicate Bank Retires Employees Welfare Association (‘SBREWA’). Under the arrangement, the Appellant is required to acquire land and undertake development activities for formation of residential sites to be transferred to the members of VBEHCSL and SBREWA. For this purpose, lands were transferred by the Appellant and his family members in favour of VBEHCSL

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Co-operative Society Ltd (‘VBEHCSL’) and Syndicate Bank Retires Employees Welfare Association (‘SBREWA’). Under the arrangement, the Appellant is required to acquire land and undertake development activities for formation of residential sites to be transferred to the members of VBEHCSL and SBREWA. For this purpose, lands were transferred by the Appellant and his family members in favour of VBEHCSL

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

section shall not be disclosed to any person\nor any authority or the Appellate Tribunal.”\n\nIn view of the above explanation the appellant cannot raise the ground of validity and legality\nof the search operation before the present Hon’ble Tribunal since the appellate Tribunal is not the\n\nITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024\nITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024\nPage

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

housing project. According to the AO, the land sold by the ass was urban land and on transfer liable for capital gains tax. The plea of the assessee that though the said land was converted into non- agricultural land, the cultivation of land continued till date and income disclosed from the said land. The AO without physical verifying the claim