MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house to make\nit better.\ne) No clarity under which section (i.e., 54 or 54F), the deduction\nwas claimed and allowed considering the nature and source of\nre-investment of LTCG.\n2.3 From the above, it is evident that the deduction u/s. 54/54F\nhas been allowed without proper examination of relevant details\nand materials. Accordingly, the assessment was completed

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

263 ITR 197\n(Gujarat), which lays down that if the owner of a property carries on\nupon the property some activities which results in profits & gains\narising, not from the ownership but from the use thereof, such\nprofits & gains would be chargeable to tax as business income and\nnot income under the head “income from house property”. In fact

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Property’, ‘Income from Business and Profession’ and ‘Income from Other Sources’. There was a survey conducted in the clinic of the assessee under section 133A of the Act on 16.11.2017. During the course of survey, certain books of accounts and documents were impounded. Statement of the assessee was also recorded. Thereafter, statement under section 131 of the Act was recorded

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Property’, ‘Income from Business and Profession’ and ‘Income from Other Sources’. There was a survey conducted in the clinic of the assessee under section 133A of the Act on 16.11.2017. During the course of survey, certain books of accounts and documents were impounded. Statement of the assessee was also recorded. Thereafter, statement under section 131 of the Act was recorded

SRI. GIREESHSHASTRI SHANKARSHASTRI JEERE ,GAJENDRAGAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, The Principal Commissioner Of Prop : Fakeeresh Fuels, Income Tax (Central), Kustagi Road, Main Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Gajendragad – 582 114. Pan : Agupj 2460 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023

Property’, ‘Income from Business and Profession’ and ‘Income from Other Sources’. There was a survey conducted in the clinic of the assessee under section 133A of the Act on 16.11.2017. During the course of survey, certain books of accounts and documents were impounded. Statement of the assessee was also recorded. Thereafter, statement under section 131 of the Act was recorded

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

section 263 of the Act stands ousted and accordingly the impugned order passed deserves to be cancelled. 15. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax despite the fact that the assessment proceeding was completed after thorough scrutiny, erred in holding that, the Assessing Officer has failed to redraw the brought forward losses. set off allowed and carry forward losses being

BHARATH CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE -1, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

House Property and remaining income earned under head Business & Profession amounting to Rs. 40,23,937/- claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 6) The claim of deduction is duly examined and found that the same is as per provisions of the Act. 7) The case of the assessee falls in the category of providing credit facilities

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

263 of the Act give unfettered right to the Commissioner of Income Tax to revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer. Whatever was to be excluded by the law has already been provided under that Section and the only exception are the issues 'decided and considered' in the appellate orders. Therefore, the reasoning of the arguments advanced

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 property, profits and gains of business, capital gains and income from other sources. The scheme of the TDS provisions applies not only to the amount paid, which bears the character of "income" such as salaries, dividends, interest on securities etc. but the said provisions also apply to gross sums, the whole of which may not be income or profits

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

Section 24 provides the deduction from income from house property. There is no dispute that the assessee had earned income from house property. The determination of annual value or the rent is also not in dispute. The Assessing Officer had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt Ltd (2003) 263

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 declared by the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. D.R. submitted that there is total lack of application of mind on the part of the A.O. and hence Ld. Principal CIT has rightly invoked revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, since the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, he submitted that

MR. YUNUS ZIA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodia

Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) also cannot be followed because in this case, the tribunal has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Lancy Construction (Supra). He submitted that when the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Canara Housing Development Company vs CIT (Supra) is available, the judgments

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

house at the time of transfer of property and not entitled for the same. 2) The failure of the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary enquiries and to assess the correct income to tax renders the assessment erroneous andyrejttdicial to revenue as contemplated by the provisions of section 263

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

263 ITR 143(SC). The ld. DR further submitted that the predominant object of the assessee is to let out the properties and earn rental income and therefore, the rental income 7 ITA Nos.845 & 850(B)15 earned by the assessee from letting out the properties cannot change the character of income merely because, it is in the activity

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

263 ITR 143(SC). The ld. DR further submitted that the predominant object of the assessee is to let out the properties and earn rental income and therefore, the rental income 7 ITA Nos.845 & 850(B)15 earned by the assessee from letting out the properties cannot change the character of income merely because, it is in the activity

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

263 ITR 143 (SC), the CIT(A) has disallowed the claim of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Mohan Kumar (HUF) in Income Tax Appeal No. 325/2009 dated

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

263 ITR 143 (SC), the CIT(A) has disallowed the claim of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Mohan Kumar (HUF) in Income Tax Appeal No. 325/2009 dated

MUTHYALA SURYABABU,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

property tax” is eligible for being claimed as cost of acquisition or cost of improvement. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of ld. PCIT as well as of the AO. According to provisions of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under