GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of [one year before or two years A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek after the date on which the transfer took place purchased], or has within a period of three years after that date [constructed, one residential house in India], then

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

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

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:

256. The said return of income was processed under the provisions of 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

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 property. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court set aside. There will be no order as to costs." *underlining for emphasis” 6.2 Having regard to the parity of reasoning of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMIYA BALA PAUL (Supra), it is noted that a Valuation Officer

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

section 147, of the LT Act, on 08.03.20 13 in the case of HUF for the assessment year 2009-10 on the basis of submission furnished by G.Anitha (Individual) during the re-opened assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005-06 on 17.0 1.2013 stating that the property in question is HUF property of N.G.Balu Reddy". 2. On the facts

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

property constructed at No.617, Hebbal, Bangalore. The assessment was completed by disallowing the exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act on the premises that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden placed on her with respect to the construction of residential house and has not filed any documentary evidences in support of the claim of deduction

M/S DAKSHINA KANNADA KOOTA BRAHMANARA MITRA MANDALI,BANGALORE vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

house property with reference to the provisions of s. 13(l)(bb) of the Act and not with reference to the provisions of the s. 11( 4A) of the Act. However, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to express any opinion on the question as to whether the letting out of Kalyanamandapam was a business

T. SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

Section 54 was to give relief to a person who had transferred his residential house and had purchased another residential house within two years of transfer or had purchased a residential house one year before transfer. It was only the excess amount not used for making purchase or construction of the property within the stipulated period, which was taxable

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

256 ITR 1 has considered a similar issue where the court has held that 18. From a bare perusal of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the said Act, as it stood up to 31st March 1989, it is evident that to confer jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act two conditions were required to be satisfied

JAYARAM REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

256 Taxman 299) • P. Balasubramanian v. CIT (33 Taxmann.com 130) • Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. DCIT (32 Taxmann.com 349) 11.12 Thus, the ld. AR concluded by submitting that in the present case there was no incriminating material whatsoever in relation to the assessment years under consideration was found during the assessment proceedings. The only basis of addition was a coerced statement

M/S CONVENTION HOTELS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property against which standard deduction is only allowable. Ground no.2 10 As regards trial run expenditure which has been treated as business loss as against treating it as a part of capital work in progress is not acceptable. The trial run expenditure is incurred by assessee was out of operations hotel act Goa during the year under consideration

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 143(3). On legal grounds raised for assessment year 2013-14, the Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee for the above assessment year filed its return of income on 20.01.2014 declaring total income of Rs.6,29,540/- consisting of Income from House Property of Rs.72,996/-, Short term capital gains of Rs.5,32,549/- and Income from Other sources

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 143(3). On legal grounds raised for assessment year 2013-14, the Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee for the above assessment year filed its return of income on 20.01.2014 declaring total income of Rs.6,29,540/- consisting of Income from House Property of Rs.72,996/-, Short term capital gains of Rs.5,32,549/- and Income from Other sources

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 143(3). On legal grounds raised for assessment year 2013-14, the Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee for the above assessment year filed its return of income on 20.01.2014 declaring total income of Rs.6,29,540/- consisting of Income from House Property of Rs.72,996/-, Short term capital gains of Rs.5,32,549/- and Income from Other sources

DR. P. DAYANANDA PAI,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2005-06 Dr. P Dayananda Pai, Vs. Dcit, 10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex, Circle – 2(2), Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Abapp 4418 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 9.12.2019 Of Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Is Also Referred To As “Pdp” In This Order. He Is In The Business Of Real Estate For Over Four Decades. He Carried On Business Of Real Estate In His Individual Capacity. From Ay 95-96 He Transferred All The Rights In Properties Under Various Agreements To A Partnership Firm “M/S.P.Dayanand Pai”, Vide Deed Of Partnership Dated 1-4-1994. In This Firm Mr.P.Dayanand Pai & His Brother Mr.P.Satish & 9 Other Individuals Were Partners. Thereafter By A Deed Of Partnership Dated 9.6.2000 The Firm “M/S.P.Dayanada Pai” Merged Its Business With Another Partnership Firm “M/S.Canara Housing Development Company” (Hereinafter Page 2 Of 39

256. The year wise break up of Ps.3,97,59.000/- are (FY 2006-07 -Rs.1,00,00,000/-, FY 2007-08-Rs.1,97,59,000/- and FY 2008-09- Ps.1,00,000). The assessee in his reply to question.6 of the statement recorded u/s 131 on 16.6.2011 confirmed that he has received Ps.3.47 crcres against the property at Kagalipura

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

256 as interest in respect of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises as required under Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and a similar amount has been shown in the return in Schedule BP Col. A-19 as interest which is not allowable under Section 23 of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said claim

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

256 Taxman 299)\n• P. Balasubramanian v. CIT (33 Taxmann.com 130)\n• Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. DCIT (32 Taxmann.com 349)\n11.12 Thus, the Id. AR concluded by submitting that in the present case\nthere was no incriminating material whatsoever in relation to the\n assessment years under consideration was found during the assessment\nproceedings. The only basis of addition