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

section is that the construction should be completed within the specified period. 17. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and in facts, in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant has provided details of all residential house property 'owned' by him and the learned CIT(A) has inadvertently considered a leased property outside India as a property owned

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

house, with required car parking spaces and all other amenities as detailed hereinafter (hereinafter referred to as the Project / Residential Apartment Building/s), subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter contained: (a) The Second Party / Developers are hereby empowered and authorized to develop the Schedule Property into "Residential Apartment Building/s” at their cost. (b) The Second party / Developers' shall construct

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

section Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page 24 of 25 35 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 accepts challenging the arbitration award before higher forum. Once the assessee accepts the arbitration award, it should be complied in letter and spirit. As such, the assessee has executed the sale deed in respect of properties

SHAMBALA PROPERTIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLR-12(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Shambala Properties Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.7, Rest House Road, Circle – 12(3) Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. (Presently – Dcit – 7(1)(2)), Pan No : Aahcs 1313 C Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Elamurusu G, Jcit (Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020

25,000/-received towards electricity deposit as rent and thereby taxing the same. 6. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in treating the entire amount of Rs. 1,93,75,823/- as rent and taxing the same under the head Income from House Property. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that Service tax is the liability

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property as provided in section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal Nos.5, 6 & 7 raised by the assessee are allowed.” In the present case, the facts involved are similar to that of Smt. Indu Chandra (supra). So, respectfully following the order

M/S MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15 M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, #41, Mantri House, Dcit Circle – 4 (1) (2), Vittal Malya Road, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560001 Pan : Aaacg4009N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – 4 Bengaluru Dated 30.11.2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

25 ITR 265 and reproduced a relevant para of that judgment of Page 9 of 15 Hon’ble apex court and for ready reference, we also reproduce that para from page 2 of the case law Paper Book. 9. Hence, it is seen that as per this Judgment of Hon’ble apex court, “the words “used for the purpose

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

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

house property’. At this juncture, we further take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (supra) and Chugandas & Co. (supra) for the proposition that nature of income has to be decided on commercial principles and a wrong classification would not alter the true character of income. The taxability

SH.KADAMBI NARAHARI,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD 15(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

houses, thereby satisfying the clause (a) to Proviso to section 54F of the Act. Thus, the AR submitted an alternate plea that assuming but not admitting that what the appellant sold was a residential plot and not a residential building, the appellant put forth the argument that he should be given the benefit of section 54F in respect

M/S ESTEEM MALL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6(3((1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year:

section 143[1] of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO passed the assessment order dated 30.3.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining income at Rs.56,65,980 on the solitary disallowance of Rs.17,25,717 being 30% of the sublet rent received at Rs.57,52,392 since the same would have been utilised under

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”. As per section 23 of the Act, the “annual letting value” of the property is liable to be taxed. Further, permissible deductions are given in section 24 of the Act. The annual value of the property is the actual rent receivable by the assessee and hence the Mall owner should have offered 100% of the license fees/rent receipts

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

house thereon. The Hon'ble ITAT held that mere fact that investment in new property was made in name of his wife could not be a reason for disallowance of deduction under section 54 to assessee. (f) N Ram Kumar v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 25

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

house property in respect of 2 properties out of which one is the property at Vishnuvardhan Road, Mysuru. If the property at Vishnuvardhan Road, Mysuru, is regarded as the property belonging to HUF, then the assessee would not be hit by the condition laid down in the proviso to section 54F(1) of the Act. The AO thereafter proceeded

SHRI.RAMAKRISHNA ASHWATH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ramakrishna Aswatgh, No. 40, 1St Floor, 1St Main, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, 3Rd Stage, Bhel Officer, Layout, Vs. Ward – 6 (3) (3), Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 080. Pan: Adrpa6087D Appellant Respondent

Section 54F is available only for purchase or construction of a new property, the assessee MrAshwath Ramakrishna constructed the additional floors on newly purchased residential units. Based on these and such other grounds that may be adduced from time to time, the appellant requests the Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the petition in the light of principles

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

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

section 54 of the I.T.Act, the assessee ought to have purchased the residential house within 2 years or constructed a residential house within 3 years from the date of sale of the original asset (the original asset was sold on 26.03.2015 for a total consideration of Rs.1,26,00,000 and the assessee ought to have either purchased

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; (v) Assessee must have within a period of two years after that date purchased another property; (vi) Property purchased must be residential; (vii) Exemption would be available only to the extent the sale proceeds are utilised; (viii) Where re-investment in a residential property is not made before due date for filing report, amount not so utilised till such

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