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 234A(3) clearly contemplates that a 'return of income' filed after the expiry of the stipulated time period shall still continue to be a 'return of income' filed by the assessee pursuant to the notice u/s 148. We find that our aforesaid view also stands fortified from the very fact that after the assessee had filed the 'return

M/S. KHADEER AHMED KHAN,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. Khadeer Ahmed Khan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.42, Doddkallasandara, Income-Tax, Kankapura Main Road, Vs. Circle – 4(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 062. Bengaluru. Pan : Aavpk 1742 Q Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2021

section 54F of the Act on the reason that the assessee is owning more than 1 house other than the new asset on the date of purchase of residential side. Further, the assessee claimed land levelling, compound and gate expenses at Rs.8,05,876/- and construction cost of Rs.48 lakhs which was denied on account of insufficient details. Against this

H.S. THYAGARAJA (HUF),BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2005-06

house property) which cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds but by specification of share amounted to a i. not a valid partition as property needs to be partitioned by metes and bounds, and ii. that this amounted to a partial portion (Para 4(i)); the learned Income Tax Officer and CIT (Appeals) ignored the definition of the relevant terms

SRI. RAGHUNATH H. BADDI,HUBLI vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.George

property was declared, the deduction was disallowed by the AO. The AO however allowed deduction of Rs.30,000/- out of the interest paid under the 1st proviso to Sec.24(b) of the Act as the residential house was vacant during the previous year and its annual value was nil. This resulted in an addition to the total income of Rs.22

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , , BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

KEELUKOTE VENKATAPPA JAYARAM,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

Appeals are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. Additionally, the bank statement reflected a credit of Rs. 48,100/- for which no explanation was provided; consequently, this amount was added u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the total income of the Assessee was assessed at Rs. 24,98,800/-. 11. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, the Assessee did not file any return

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 6.20 In light of the above decision, the Ld. A.R. submitted that

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 6.20 In light of the above decision, the Ld. A.R. submitted that

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 6.20 In light of the above decision, the Ld. A.R. submitted that

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 6.20 In light of the above decision, the Ld. A.R. submitted that

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature.” 6.20 In light of the above decision, the Ld. A.R. submitted that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

property in the hand of the transferor and it gets vested in the hand of transferee. Therefore, in the case of transfer the right or ownership of transferor is completely extinguished and it is vested with the transferee. In the case on hand, the assessee is vested with the right to use the patented technical know how / technology under

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

house property, it can also set up another line of business, it may even pay dividends out of this income to its shareholders. There is no overriding title of anybody diverting the income at source to pay the amount to the creditors of the company. It is well- settled that tax is attracted at the point when the income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BPL LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bpl Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), 11Th Km, Bannerghatta Road, Arakere, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaacb 9461 B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

House Property”. The assessee had sold its properties at Delhi and Bengaluru and derives Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.14,88,16,483/-. The assessee had Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) of Rs.27,55,73,246/- carried forward from Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee set off LTCL against LTCG and claimed carried forward of LTCL remaining unabsorbed. Page