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

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

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

houses of the managing\ndirector and other directors. In such a case, when the\nmanaging director or any other persons were found to be not\nin possession of any incriminating material, the question of\nexamining them by the authorised officer during the course of\nsearch and recording any statement from them by invoking the\npowers under section 132(4

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

houses of the managing\ndirector and other directors. In such a case, when the\nmanaging director or any other persons were found to be not\nin possession of any incriminating material, the question of\nexamining them by the authorised officer during the course of\nsearch and recording any statement from them by invoking the\npowers under section 132(4

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

19 of 81\n7.\n(b) no order making an assessment of the total income or loss of such fund or institution\nor trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical\ninstitution shall be made by him without giving effect to the order passed by the Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner under clause

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

19,023\n2017-18\n13,84,67,830\n2018-19\n11,51,54,100\n2019-20\n17,31,80,257\n2020-21\n16,38,64,461\n2021-22\n25,79,99,389\nTotal amount in Rs.\n86,21,85,060/-\n1.7 The relevant part of Mr. M Vasu statement dated 26.06.2022 is reproduced below:\nQ.71 Do you have anything else

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

section 132(4)\nof the Act from the assessee in which assessee admitted that the bookings\nmade under QN are unaccounted and cash receipts in “BB” are unaccounted.\nThe question answer Nos.18 and 19 are as under:\n18. Your attention is brought to the diary bearing no. 05/SAM T&T/132/2017-18\nseized during the course of search proceeding

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

19 of 81\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\n07. Based on these, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on\n13.3.2024 asking to explain why the registration granted to the trust\nshould not be cancelled. In the show cause notice, the ld. PCIT noted\nthat 5 instances show that there is a diversion of charitable trust fund\nfor

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

section 132(4)\nof the Act from the assessee in which assessee admitted that the bookings\nmade under QN are unaccounted and cash receipts in “BB” are unaccounted.\nThe question answer Nos.18 and 19 are as under:\n\n18. Your attention is brought to the diary bearing no. 05/SAM T&T/132/2017-18\nseized during the course of search proceeding

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