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

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

property on 14.06.2017, the net consideration from the sale was not utilized towards acquisition or construction of a new residential house as provided in section 54F(1) of the Act by the by the date of filing of return of income. Accordingly, assessee was required under section 54F(4) of the Act to deposit the unutilised net consideration

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

Section 32(1) of the Act.” 5. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the reasoning given by the assessee and therefore disallowed the business losses to the tune of Rs. 5,20,16,620/- and treated the entire rental receipt as income from the house property. After treating the rental income as income from the house property, the Assessing

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4 Property @ Bull Temple Road 3,82,87,162 3,82,87,162 5 Property @ JP Nagar 2,67,07,891 2,67,07,891 6 Property@ OMBR Layout 19,56,591 19,56,591 3.2 The AO accepted the details of immovable properties furnished by the assessee, however, observed that the assessee has shown rental income from only

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

House Property". Denial of long-term capital loss of Rs 2,725,693 on sale of a painting 19. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and on facts, by denying the claim of long-term capital loss on sale of a painting of Rs 2,725,693 without appreciating the submissions furnished by Appellant in support

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

House, First Cross Central Circle-1 Vs. N.G. Road, Attavar Mangaluru Mangaluru 575 001 Karnataka PAN NO : AAGCM8310E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are for the assessment years

BASHEER NOORULLAH KHAN,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Basheer Noorullah Khan, No. 116B, 5Th Block, Khb The Commissioner Of Colony, Koramangala, Vs. Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore – 560 034. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk3037H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

19 and 20 of this judgment. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce the provisions of section 54F of the IT Act. The same are as under. Page 3 of 9 Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1) Subject

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BAGALKOT vs. SHRI BAPOOJI PATTIN SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT , BAGALKOT

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14

house property chargeable under section 22. IT(TP)A No.309/Bang/2014 Page 6 of 12 Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

property as on 1st April 19 As per valuation report Rs.50 per sq.ft Total area - 1800 Sq.ft 270000 Index value 1981 100 2011-12 7.85 2119500 Index cost of acquisition 2119500 Long Term capital gains 1,2698100 Less: exemption u/s 54 For reinvestment in capital gains account scheme 1,4900000 Net capital gains Nil” 4. It can be seen from

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 12(4) of 1922, which has analogy to 56(iii) of IT Act of 1961. In this case, the letting of building is along with letting machinery, plant or furniture required for ancillaries services and therefore, we hold that the alternative plea of the appellant that in case the income is not to be assessed under the head “income

PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 12(4) of 1922, which has analogy to 56(iii) of IT Act of 1961. In this case, the letting of building is along with letting machinery, plant or furniture required for ancillaries services and therefore, we hold that the alternative plea of the appellant that in case the income is not to be assessed under the head “income

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

house and also borrowed a gold loan of Rs.9,13,990 from Muthoot Finance Ltd. This loan was repaid of Rs.1,49,66,540/- to Standard Chartered Bank and Rs.9,30,990/- to the Muthoot Gold Loan. As these loans were never obtained for the benefit of the trust, the repayment of the loan was made out of the trust

M/S. INDRAPRASTHA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year :2011-12 M/S. Indraprastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Prestige Corniche, Circle –11(4), No.62/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aabci 2643 B Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2020 O R D E R

House Property”, the assessee has claimed deduction of a sum of Rs.69,84,167/- under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), as interest paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of Page 2 of 8 construction of the property. The breakup of the interest so claimed as deduction is as follows: “Pre Construction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU vs. KUDLUR RAMASWAMY SATHYANARAYANA, MYSURU

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey**

house property. Consequent to the search action, a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 11.08.2015. In response to the notice, assessee filed return of income on 16.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.81,26,510/-. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the amount declared

SMT.CHANDRAKALA SHASHIDAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

property should be in the name of the appellant to prove that the house was constructed within 3 years. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred to state that the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of K.Ramachandra Rao relied by the appellant would not be applicable to the present case as the appellant had neither deposited

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

house R&D centre expenditure at Hyderabad under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act.” ii. As per the Notes to Accounts - Schedule 15, under “Deferred Revenue Expenditure” (page 31 of PB-II), it is mentioned that, “Expenditure incurred on research and development of new products has been treated as deferred revenue expenditure and the same has been written

M/S. DEEPALI COMPANY PRIVAE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax (Earlier Known As :Deepali Co. Officer, Pvt. Ltd.) Ward – 2 (1)(2), 35, Commercial Street, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Pan: Aaacd5120H Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 03.0.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2016-17 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Not Allowing Business Loss For The Year Of Rs. 114,66.766/- On The Ground That The Business Of The Assessee Company Is Closed & There Are No Receipts From Operation Of Business.

19,000/- as rent under the head, Part-A P&L account, however, in the computation, Rs. 38,43,000/- was considered after claiming deduction u/s.24, that was declared under Part B, mentioning the income from house property as per Schedule – HP. 2.6 The Ld.CIT(A) while passing the impugned order, accepted that, there was no discrepancy on account

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024