NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

property. It was contended by the assessee that the transfer\ntook place only in AY 2013-14, subsequent to executing the POA\ndated 17 August 2012. However, the Assessing Officer held that\ncapital gains were liable to be taxed in AY 2012-13 since there was\na transfer under Section 2(47)(v) as on the date of executing

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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

47 taxmann.com 158/225 Taxman 211/372 ITR\n83has clearly held that the AO, discharging quasi-judicial function,\nhas the bounden duty to act fairly and to follow the course provided\nby law, which in that case, was the reference to the valuation officer.\nIn the present case, in view of the assessee's specific dispute and\nclaim before the AO that

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle lintel; Reinforced brick lintel; 74- Technical guidance

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle lintel; Reinforced brick lintel; 74- Technical guidance

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle lintel; Reinforced brick lintel; 74- Technical guidance

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle lintel; Reinforced brick lintel; 74- Technical guidance

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle lintel; Reinforced brick lintel; 74- Technical guidance

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle lintel; Reinforced brick lintel; 74- Technical guidance

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

47 fruits of research from Pre-Cast Concrete Products; 48- lab to land 49 Earthen Products; 50 Model House & Demonstration Buildings; 51- 52 Construction of skating track using Arch foundation technique; 57 Construction using antic materials; 58- Innovative works & wood houses; 59 Dome construction; 68- Polymer concrete; 70 Pet bottle wall; Pet bottle lintel; Reinforced brick lintel; 74- Technical guidance

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

houses,\nprinting presses, hostels, residential quarters and the like.\n(ii) To provide medical relief to the poor, distressed, afflicted and mentally,\nphysically, or psychologically handicapped persons, in India including supply of\nspectacles and other medical, surgical and remedial appliances and for this\npurpose to start, establish, conduct, maintain and manage and help\ndispensaries, hospitals, medical centres, diagnostic centres

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

house property.\n13,47,060\n5.\nThe CIT(A) erred in holding that section 44AD does not apply\nto the maintenance charges received from State Bank of India.\n13,47,060\n6.\nWithout prejudice, the Appellant's claim seeking deduction of\nall expenses against the maintenance charges received from\nState Bank of India ought to have been allowed.\n13,47

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

section 2(47)(v) of the Act cannot be invoked so as to bring the capital gain into tax in the assessment year 2014-15. Thus, the very foundation of the case of the revenue devoid of merits and more so, there is specific clause in the JDA as enumerated earlier that the assessee has not fully parted with