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

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

Section 23(1)(c) to the present case. Amanda Joy Puravankara, Bengaluru Page 2 of 7 i. The Ld. Officers below erred failed to appreciate that the first house was continuously let out ever since it was acquired in 2011 and it could not be let out from October 2013 to May 2015 despite best of the efforts

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

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

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. On further appeal

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 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

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

KANTILAL JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

sections 234B and 234C be deleted. The Appellant prays accordingly.” 2. With regard to the additions to income from other sources, based on Form 26AS, short grant of TDS credit and levy of interest u/s 234B of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. 3. Facts of the issue are that the appellant, a resident individual, filed

SRI DHEERAJ GOVINDAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2724/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Dheeraj Govindappa, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, 1183, 3Rd Cross, 3Rd Stage, Ward – 4[2][2], Hal Layout, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Bpqpg 3893 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Satya Sai Rath, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019

234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 6. Ground No. 2 – Exemption u/s 54F of the Act 6.1 This ground raised by the assessee (supra), challenges the action of the authorities below in restricting the quantum of exemption claimed by the assessee i.e., Rs.80 lakhs to 50% thereof. According to the learned AR, the facts

SHARADAMBA ENTERPRISES,HUBLI vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Sharadama Enterprises, Station Road, Hubli. … Appellant Pan:Abofs 5233 J Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubli. … Respondent

house property and same is to be accepted without any variations and the action of the Assessing Officer (as confirmed by Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ) of taxing the rentals as Business Income is to be deleted. 3.3 On proper appreciation of facts and the law applicable the action of authorities below being erroneous on facts

SHRI.RAGHURAM P NAMBYAR,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

House Property” for the purposes of Sec. 22 does not require registration of sale deed. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) was rendered in the context of Sec.22 of the Act. In the case on hand, however, the matter of dispute is not with regard to the provisions of Sec.22 of the Act and thus

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

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

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

house for the purposes of section 54F of the Act. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions would be squarely applicable to the appellant's case since the facts of the appellant's case are parallel. 11.4 In view of the above, it is submitted that the appellant is entitled to exemption u/s.54F of the Act, in respect

CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

house property should be reckoned from the date of such order, on the facts and circumstances of the case. f. Without prejudice and not conceding that the sale consideration has been utilised within the time specified, the capital gains on sale of land could not have exceeded Rs.7,85,55,036/- on the facts and circumstances of the case

DR ANJANAIAH ,TUMKUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee’s stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiita No.676(Bang)/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dr. Anjanaiah, Maruti Hospital, Maralur Ring Road Maralur, Tumkur Panno.Acjpa1504A Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2(3)(1), Bangalore Respondent & Ita No.677(Bang)/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dr.M.A.Venkatesh Murthy, Martuti Hospital, Maralur Ring Road, Maralur, Tumkur Pan No.Ablpv0955B Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2(3)(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit

house to avail the benefit under section 54F of the Act. 6. Without prejudice, the capital gains as computed by the assessing authority is excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in toto. 7. The Ld.Commissioner(A) erred in confirming the interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 8.For these and other grounds that

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction under