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 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

MR. ARUNKUMAR NATHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

property. Accordingly, the CIT (Appeals) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has purchased two flats at different locations due to the family requirement of the assessee. The flat in Jalahalli was purchased for the residential purpose of the assessee because the assessee was working

SRI. GANGA POORNA PRASAD,MYSURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MYSURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Sri Ganga Poorna Prasad, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #718, Ii Main, 1St Cross, 1St Block, Income Tax, Ramakrishnagar, Circle-2(1), Mysuru – 570 026. Mysuru. Pan : Aiqpp 5131 K Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru

House Property Let out properties Property] 1089, Vishnuvardha raod, 24,000 Gross annual value 24,000 Less - Municipal taxes Net annual value NIL Deductions 24,000 Standard deduction u/s 24(a) 7,200 Net Income from Property] 16,800 Propertv2 Gross annual value 18,000 Less - Municipal taxes NIL Net annual value Deductions 18,000 Standard deduction

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

200 TTJ 0659 -\nThe assessee could not be treated, as 'absolute owner' of\nsuch property and therefore, the exemption under section\n54F could not be denied to assessee by alleging that he\nwas owner of two properties on date of transfer of capital\nassets.\nPage 5 of 13\nITA No.825/Bang/2024\nJagajit Singh Bajwa, Bangalore\n4.3 Accordingly, he prayed that order

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.

sections 30 to 36. b) Expenditure should not be of capital nature c) The expenditure should be incurred during the previous year. d) The expenditure should not be of personal nature. e) The expenditure should have been incurred wholly or exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession. f) The business should be commenced or continuing. Page

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

200/- and construction agreement for a consideration Rs.56,45,960/- was executed on 31.12.2013 in favour of the assessee and his wife Mrs. Lovita Phukan for a total consideration of Rs.88,60,160/-. 3.2 The AO noted that the assessee had sold the property on 01/09/2015, whereas the registered sale deed of new purchased property as submitted by the assessee

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 48, the language employed is unambiguous. The intention is very clear. When a capital asset is transferred, in order to determine the capital gain from such transfer, what is to be seen is, out of full value of the consideration received or accruing, the cost of acquisition of the asset, the cost of improvement and any expenditure wholly

M/S SILVER SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 234A and 234B of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

200. These expenses were capitalized and shown a WIP in the balance sheet by the appellant. These expenses are not claimed as expenditure in the P&L. A/c by the appellant as the same were treated as capital expenses. The AO has all the power to investigate and enquire into the affairs of the appellant's case and the expenditure

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SOMCHAND KANJI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri. Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-5(2)(2), Bangalore. .Appellant Vs. Shri Somchand Kanji, (Rept. By Hiten Somchand Ladhad) No.43, 2Nd Main Road, New Tharagupet, Bangalore. . Respondent Pan – Aezpk 6069E. Appellant By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Jcit Respondent By : Shri G.S Prashanth, C.A Date Of Hearing : 26-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 2-05-2018

200 sq.ft. RCC with cement floor and civic amenities on the said property could be said to be “a residential house” for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s.54F of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court approved the findings of the Tribunal and held that the assessee fulfilled conditions for grant of exemption under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

section 147, of the LT Act, on 08.03.20 13 in the case of HUF for the assessment year 2009-10 on the basis of submission furnished by G.Anitha (Individual) during the re-opened assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005-06 on 17.0 1.2013 stating that the property in question is HUF property of N.G.Balu Reddy". 2. On the facts

GOPAL SHASHIDHARA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

House Property” was\nless than the rent shown in the rent agreement furnished by him. On\nbeing questioned, the assessee could not provide any satisfactory\nexplanation or reconciliation for the difference. The AO, therefore,\ncomputed the understatement of rental income at 89,840/- and added\nthe same to the total income.\n19. On appeal, the Id. CIT(A) upheld

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. 9. Accordingly, a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19. In response to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income for respective assessment years and for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 declaring an income

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. 9. Accordingly, a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19. In response to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income for respective assessment years and for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 declaring an income

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

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

200 21/Feb/2015-Paid towards stamp duty charges-Refer Pg 8 of Sale deed 1,23,836 28/Jan/2015-Paid to builder-Refer the Statement of Account 04/Mar/2015-Paid to builder-Refer the Statement of Account 1,89,663 04/Mar/2015-Paid to interior works for the house 16,156 Amount paid towards interior works for the house 36,13,380 Total amount for claiming exemption