KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

234B was also disputed.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) had adjudicated the grounds issue wise. As far as the\nlimitation ground raised by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the\nletter furnished by the assessee on 17/07/2023 in which the assessee had\nprayed to decide the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act based on the\njudgment

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

234B was also disputed.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) had adjudicated the grounds issue wise. As far as the\nlimitation ground raised by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the\nletter furnished by the assessee on 17/07/2023 in which the assessee had\nprayed to decide the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act based on the\njudgment

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

Property Act 1882 (herein after TPA) and as the appellant is contesting the application of this provision in the present case, I have examined closely the ingredients of the above provisions. 5.6 Further, the amendment to section 54 F (1) by substituting the words Page 9 of 10 'constructed', one residential house in India" for constructed, a residential house

RAVINDRA SUNKU,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 234B. 9. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal, the appellant requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” 2. Both the assesses filed their returns individually, the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment treated husband and wife (assesses) as Association

BHAGYA MAHANTESH KHODANPUR ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhagya Mahantesh Khodanpur, Income Tax Officer, Indu Arcade, Vithoba Galli, Ward-2(1), Durgadbail, Vs. Hubballi. Hubballi-580020. Pan No : Apxpk0150P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Bhagya Mahantesh Khodanpur Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) (In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2015-16 On 28/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 29/12/2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurugram U/S. 250 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2025 Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Addition Of Rs. 4,42,500/- Is Bad In Law & 2. Liable To Be Deleted.

section 24(b) clearly states that where the property has been acquired or constructed with borrowed capital, the amount of Page 7 of 8 Bhagya Mahantesh Khodanpur vs. ITO any interest payable on such capital shall be allowed as deduction. It is also noted that the Assessing Officer has directly received interest Certificate from KSFC. It is also observed that

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

section 54F of the Act by holding that the said benefit is available only in case of one residential flat for the relevant assessment year. 6.3 The AO erred in not allowing the said exemption u/s. 54F of the Act even to the extent of flats acquired by the Appellant, situated in the same building

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

section 54F of the Act by holding that the said benefit is available only in case of one residential flat for the relevant assessment year. 6.3 The AO erred in not allowing the said exemption u/s. 54F of the Act even to the extent of flats acquired by the Appellant, situated in the same building

SR. N PRATHAP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

house under the facts and circumstances of the case. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the mandatory conditions of "transferee being in possession" and "willingness to perform" as envisaged under section 53A of the Transfer of 3. Property Act, 1882 was not satisfied in the case - instant and thus there could have been no possession to result in deemed

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

House Property”. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that, the assessee had not let out the building as it is, and the assessee is providing other services also which is nothing but carrying on business. 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that, the amount paid

PADMANABAN SUKHUMARAN ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee towards the interest claimed u/s

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernable from the order and hence deserves

M/S CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2003-04 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

house property in the order of rectification is not in accordance with law. 8. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the status of the appellant is firm and any receipts or income has to be treated as income from business as per the provisions of and circumstances of the case. 9. The order passed by the learned authorities without

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

Section 54 of the Act 77,14,409/- 17, The Learned CIT(A) erred in failing to direct the Assessing Officer to give credit for the sum of Rs.77,14,409/- out of the sum of Rs.79,73,867/- being the Prepaid Taxes for A.Y.2015-16 when the AO has brought to tax the Long-Term Capital A.Y.2014-15 which is Gains

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

234B.\n\n4. Prayer\n\n4. 1. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the order passed under section 250 of the Act by the learned CIT(A), NFAC to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant be quashed or in the alternative the above grounds of appeal

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

234B and 234C of the Act are agitated, in addition to the addition of Rs.7,55,85,800/- made by the AO on protective basis. 2.1 The appellant's first appeal was dismissed in Limine by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee had not paid the taxes in full in respect of the admitted income

SRI KORAMANGALA MUNIREDDY CHANDRA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property was let out for a period of 13 years and subsequently remained vacant for the whole assessment year despite efforts from the owner to subsequently let the same on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 50% amounting

M/S SOBHA GLAZING & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 23(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961where the property was actually let out, the actual amount of rent received or receivable would form part of the income from house property. Ordinarily, the notional interest that may accrue on the security deposit would not form part of income from house ITA Nos.1607, 1630 & 1692/B/2012 Page

M/S SOBHA INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 23(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961where the property was actually let out, the actual amount of rent received or receivable would form part of the income from house property. Ordinarily, the notional interest that may accrue on the security deposit would not form part of income from house ITA Nos.1607, 1630 & 1692/B/2012 Page

M/S SOBHA INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 23(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961where the property was actually let out, the actual amount of rent received or receivable would form part of the income from house property. Ordinarily, the notional interest that may accrue on the security deposit would not form part of income from house ITA Nos.1607, 1630 & 1692/B/2012 Page

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 on the properties held in the name of his son, Shri. Vajramuni K.P is found to be more than the taxable income and it is noticed that they are also non-filers for the purpose of Income Tax. It was found that no books of accounts are maintained and there is no record with regard to the income