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

4 of 7 “11. After" considering the submissions of both the parties and the material on record, it is noticed that the property in question remained vacant and claim of the assessee was that she made all the efforts to let out the property, but the same could not be let out because the property was situated at 5th floor

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

House, First Cross Central Circle-1 Vs. N.G. Road, Attavar Mangaluru Mangaluru 575 001 Karnataka PAN NO : AAGCM8310E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are for the assessment years

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

4,40,00,000/- 28,98,05,363/- 2021-22\n47,29,00,000/- 15,85,90,000/- 63,14,90,000/- Sub-Total\n115,40,37,713/- 30,01,23,000/- 145,41,60,713/- Total funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\n145,41,60,713/- trustees (Amount in Rs.)\n6.1.1 The assessee trust has furnished a detailed

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

4,40,00,000/-\n28,98,05,363/-\n2021-22\n47,29,00,000/- 15,85,90,000/- 63,14,90,000/-\nSub-Total\n115,40,37,713/- 30,01,23,000/- 145,41,60,713/-\nTotal funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\ntrustees (Amount in Rs.)\n145,41,60,713/-\n6.1.1 The assessee trust has furnished a detailed

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

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

4,40,00,000/-\n28,98,05,363/-\n2021-22\n47,29,00,000/- 15,85,90,000/- 63,14,90,000/-\nSub-Total\n115,40,37,713/- 30,01,23,000/- 145,41,60,713/-\nTotal funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\n145,41,60,713/-\ntrustees (Amount in Rs.)\n6.1.1 The assessee trust has furnished a detailed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

house. The total amount paid was Rs.11,00,000/- during the\nFY16-17.\nPage No.169 and 170 contain the details of amount paid to Mr. Chetan Gopal for\npurchasing his property. The total amount paid to him was Rs.1,64,00,000/-. However,\nthe property was registered only for Rs.1,15,00,000/-. The remaining amount of\nRs.49

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

house. The total amount paid was Rs.11,00,000/- during the\nFY16-17.\nPage No.169 and 170 contain the details of amount paid to Mr. Chetan Gopal for\npurchasing his property. The total amount paid to him was Rs.1,64,00,000/-. However,\nthe property was registered only for Rs.1,15,00,000/-. The remaining amount of\nRs.49

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

23 of the Act. "Owner of the house property" is defined in section 27 of the Act which includes certain situations where a person not actually the owner shall be treated as deemed owner of a building or part thereof. In the present case, the appellant is held to be "deemed owner" of the property in question by virtue

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

house and also borrowed a gold loan of Rs.9,13,990 from Muthoot Finance Ltd. This loan was repaid of Rs.1,49,66,540/- to Standard Chartered Bank and Rs.9,30,990/- to the Muthoot Gold Loan. As these loans were never obtained for the benefit of the trust, the repayment of the loan was made out of the trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI vs. SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN KALBURGI, HUBBALLI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for both the\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page

house property and income from other sources as\nwell as exempt income under section 10(2A) of the Act. Being a partnership firm,\nassessee filed original written of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19\nelectronically on 26.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.35,33,480/- and the\nsame was processed under section

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development co. vs. DCIT, CC1(1), Bangalore (49 taxmqaann.com 98) (kar) 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed ITA 465/Bang/2024

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. HANUMANTHAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Houses of Parliament.” 43. The enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 105 consists of the following thirteen Parliamentary enactments, namely: “THE FOURTH SCHEDULE [See section 105] LIST OF ENACTMENTS REGULATING LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT 1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

23 of 48 AY 2015-16 (ITA No.2318/Bang/2024)[ By assessee]m 42. This appeal for AY 2015-16 is identical to ground of appeal for AY 2014-15 raising following grounds:- “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances