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 37 commission paid : 29421834 Depreciation as per Profit and Loss Account : 140067258 TOTAL ADDITIONS U/s. 28 to 44DA 169489092 Expenses considered under other head / Exp related to Exempt income Exp. Considered under other head-Interest : 278952800 Exp. Considered under other head-Property Tax : 133907498 Total Expenses considered under other Head/ 412860298 Exp Related to Exempt Income TOTAL ADDITION

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

21 of 31 sec.47(iv) of which the condition has not been satisfied by the assessee company. 72. Gift is definitely a transfer of property. The mother law governing the subject matter of transfer of property is Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Sec.5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines the term transfer of property

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

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

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

section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, it seems to us that the income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. A person may construct a house according to his plans, requirements and compulsions. A person may construct a residential house in such a manner that he may use the ground floor

M/S K.BABU (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. K. Babu (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2, Dollars Colony, Ward – 7(2)(3), 1St Cross, 2Nd Main, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan: Aaggk 0809 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

section 54F of the Act on all the 10 flats received under the JDA then the question regarding year of taxability of LTCG would become academic because there would remain no taxable long term capital gain. Learned DR placed reliance on the decision of the AO and CIT(A). 14. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 50C are applicable and held that transaction is taxable for the year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer Page 5 of 21 thus treated Rs.2,77,06,000/- as the sale consideration received by the assessee and calculated income from capital gains accordingly. 7. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the action of the AO in reopening the assessment

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

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

section 23(1)(a)(b) the hire of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year or actual rent received is the basis of determination of annual value. In the present case it cannot be disputed that the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

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

section 23(1)(a)(b) the hire of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year or actual rent received is the basis of determination of annual value. In the present case it cannot be disputed that the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property, income from partnership firms in which they were partners and also income from other sources. They filed their return of income for the subject AY declaring a total income of Nil and Rs 2,68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property, income from partnership firms in which they were partners and also income from other sources. They filed their return of income for the subject AY declaring a total income of Nil and Rs 2,68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section

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

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.

21-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present 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 and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in not allowing business loss for the year

SMT. NETHRAVATHI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Nethravathi, No.2, 8Th Cross, 1St Main, Sampangiram Nagar, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aafpn6032J. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Warad – 2(3)(3), Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri P Dinesh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : -04-2018 O R D E R

section 54F of the Act and hence cannot be ITA No.2630/B/17 8 eligible for deduction u/s 54F. Therefore, he uphold the addition of Rs.1,41,08,787/- made by the AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld counsel for assessee apart from relying

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

Section 54 of the income Tax Act. Hence, we do not see any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee also pointed out that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has been followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

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