SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

house property and other sources filed return of income electronically for the assessment year 2010-11 on 13.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.54,34,810/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted on 2.3.2015 at the business premises of the assessee. During the survey, the assessee was asked to explain the present

AMANDA JOY PURAVANKARA ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

property to fall within the purview of clause (c) of section 23(1). [Para 15] From a reading of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 23,it appears that the Legislatures in their wisdom have used the words 'house

M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

section 23 of the Act. "Owner of the house property" is defined in section 27 of the Act which includes

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

23,064/-. He also claimed that he has utilised 1,36,00,000/- for house\nconstruction. On the ground that the assessee has not furnished how much amount\nwas in fact utilized for construction after the date of sale, the claim of the assessee\nfor claiming exemption was not accepted. The assessee claimed to have utilized

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

COTHA VINOD HAYAGRIV,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

property\nof the appellant and the rent received from the son of the appellant is\nnot obligatory but out of responsibility and consequently\nas per the provisions of section 23(2) of the Act, the\nannual value ought to be taken as nil on the facts and circumstances\nof the case.\n9. The appellant craves for leave of this

AZIM HASHAM PREMJI ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

house properties at Yercaud, Coonoor and Mahabaleshwar for ascertaining the deemed rental value. The assessee had not responded and therefore the AO had proposed to treat the three properties eligible for calculating the deemed rental income as per section 23

AZIM HASHAM PREMJI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

house properties at Yercaud, Coonoor and Mahabaleshwar for ascertaining the deemed rental value. The assessee had not responded and therefore the AO had proposed to treat the three properties eligible for calculating the deemed rental income as per section 23

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

property purchased one year prior to the transfer, which gave rise to the capital gain or may be in the alternative have expressly made the exemption in case of prior purchase, subject to purchase from any advance that might have been received for the transfer of the residential house which resulted in the capital gain. 23. At the cost

SRI. G.S. SHIVANNA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-4, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

23 & 24 of paper book) the individual is shown to have owned more than one house property. It appears that the PCIT has confused himself with the return of the individual and that of the HUF. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to set aside the order of the PCIT

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 194I is not talking about only renting of the property but also renting of machinery, plant or equipment. Further, with respect to the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- received as sub letting charges at a trade exhibition is already shown by the Assessee by netting off the expenditure. Therefore, there is a double addition of all the above

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

house to the DVO for evaluating cost of construction and in turn the cost of the properties was determined at higher figure as against the cost declared by the firm as cost of construction. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of difference as income from undisclosed sources as investment in cost of construction of the properties. The Tribunal set aside

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house, the annual value of the properties must be determined and brought to tax.It is an undisputed fact that the assessee wanted to sell these two villas and he had entered into an agreement for sale and for this reason he kept the property vacant. We are of the considered opinion that for the application of section 23

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house, the annual value of the properties must be determined and brought to tax.It is an undisputed fact that the assessee wanted to sell these two villas and he had entered into an agreement for sale and for this reason he kept the property vacant. We are of the considered opinion that for the application of section 23

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

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

housing society, who was referred to as the owner, and two developers. Strewn throughout the agreement is the fact that the owner, being absolutely seized and possessed of the property, was desirous of assigning its development rights for developing the same. [Para 13] • A reading of the JDA shows that, it is essentially an agreement to facilitate development