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

house property as business income, depreciation on the said asset should also be allowed. This is explicitly made clear by Explanation 5 to 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

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

Section 54F(1) of the Act have to be cumulatively satisfied. 18. According to the AO since the assessee owned more than one residential house, a flat at Kasturaba Nagar, Bengaluru and property at UK and the new house (yet to be constructed) was 3rd house property, therefore, deduction u/s 54F of the Act will not be allowed. The assessee

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

20% under section 206AA of the Act. Grounds relating to applicability of section 201(1A) 4. The learned AO and CIT(A) have erred in levying interest under section 4.1. 201(1A) of the Act. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, no interest is leviable under section 201(1A) and the assessee denies

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property at Airport Road is nil u/s 23(1)(c) of the Act. 9. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the value of Jayanagar property is unexplained even though the appellant had accounted the value of the site in its books of account. 10. That the learned Commissioner

S.M. VINOD (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SRI. S M MUNIYAPPA),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

20 of the order clearly observed that the entire property constitutes one residential house, but was bifurcated with two Door Nos. for Ground Floor and 1st Floor with common entrance in Ground Floor only to earmark the share of each beneficiary and that otherwise the property constitutes a single property, though it has two different Door Nos. The Tribunal

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 said Circular is reproduced below: “Fresh loan raised to repay original loan taken for constructing/ buying property - Whether interest payable on second loan would also be admissible as a deduction under clause (vi) of sub-section (1) 1. Section 24(1)(vi ) provides that where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

20,000/- as her share in the sale consideration for sale of ½ share of right title and interest over the property. 3. For assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed a Return of income, declaring Long term Capital Gain on Dr. Devika Gunasheela, Bengaluru Page 3 of 19 sale of her share of the property. The computation of long term

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

house property. Therefore, firstly what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are the facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly, it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry

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

house property. Therefore, firstly what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are the facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly, it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry

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

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 to the provisions

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

20,413/- from allied services/ activities performed by the appellant as part of the income assessable under the head "Income from House Property" instead of assessing the said receipts under the head "Profits and Gains from Business" as returned by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2.1 The learned CIT[A] failed

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

20,413/- from allied services/ activities performed by the appellant as part of the income assessable under the head "Income from House Property" instead of assessing the said receipts under the head "Profits and Gains from Business" as returned by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2.1 The learned CIT[A] failed

SH.KADAMBI NARAHARI,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD 15(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

section 54 will have to be restricted to only one house etc, then on 20-01-2014 , the assessee made a fresh claim of deduction u/s 54 on only one residential flat i.e. at D 1407, Brigade Gateway, Bangalore, on an investment at Rs.99,28,616 while its registered sale deed had shown the value at Rs.16,40,000/- only

SRI SURESH.C,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2006-07

20-01-2003 with M/s. Ittina Properties Pvt.Ltd. for carrying out development over the land owned by her by constructing flats. As per the JDA, the assessee was to get 27 flats as his share of built up area in consideration for transferring 70% undivided share of property. Out of the 27 flats, the Assessee retained for himself 13 flats

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

house property to business income. 17. On the other hand, the ld. AR supported the order of the CIT(Appeals) and relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT, 373 ITR 676 (SC) wherein it was held that if the entire income is from letting out of property, then

M/S. G CROP PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

house property is charged on the annual letting value and term “Annual letting value” has been defined u/s 23 of the Act. Further, the assessee is entitled to claim only those expense which are listed out in section 24 of the Act from the annual letting value determined u/s 23 of the Act. Admittedly, the A.O. did not examine

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

property and consequently the conditions as specified in section 54 of the I.T.Act having been complied. The relevant extract of the clause in the registered sale deed dated 23.03.2018 in which the developer Sri. B. Suresh has also signed as a consenting witness is reproduced hereunder for clarity: "1. WHEREAS the PURCHASER further represented that certain disputes arose between them

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property at Delhi on 07/09/2015 for a total consideration of Rs. 70,00,000/- which was originally purchased on 04/06/2007 for a consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-, the index cost of acquisition being Rs.33,35,209/-. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the long term capital gain as computed by the assessee amounting to Rs.36