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

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

house property. However, regarding the Purvankara flat, the Tribunal found that the AO rightly considered the fair rental value as the property was not let for the entire year.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "44AD", "23(1)(a)", "23(1)(c)", "24(a)", "22", "28

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

Property : 20513135 2. INCOME FROM BUSINESS / PROFESSION 2.1 Business” Cessna Garden Developers Pvt. Ltd No. 1, The Falcon House, Main Guard Cross Road Bangalore Net Profit before Tax – (P1) -162434658 Additions SEC-37-Any other amount not allowable under section 37 commission paid : 29421834 Depreciation as per Profit and Loss Account : 140067258 TOTAL ADDITIONS U/s. 28

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

house property at Kasturba Nagar, Bangalore (other than the UK property) and the property which he acquired by investing the capital gain. 28. Another aspect considered by the CIT(A) is that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act for Rs.13,41,39,988/-. Shares in question which gave rise to LTCG were transferred on 16/12/2011

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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

M/S. HANUMANTHAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Houses of Parliament.” 43. The enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 105 consists of the following thirteen Parliamentary enactments, namely: “THE FOURTH SCHEDULE [See section 105] LIST OF ENACTMENTS REGULATING LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT 1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

M/S. INDRAPRASTHA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year :2011-12 M/S. Indraprastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Prestige Corniche, Circle –11(4), No.62/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aabci 2643 B Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2020 O R D E R

house property. The said Circular is reproduced below: “Fresh loan raised to repay original loan taken for constructing/ buying property - Whether interest payable on second loan would also be admissible as a deduction under clause (vi) of sub-section (1) 1. Section 24(1)(vi ) provides that where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

Houses of\nParliament.\"\n43. The enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth\nSchedule referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 105 consists of the\nfollowing thirteen Parliamentary enactments, namely:\n“THE FOURTH SCHEDULE\n[See section 105]\nLIST OF ENACTMENTS REGULATING LAND ACQUISITION AND\nREHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT\n1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

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 K.BABU (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. K. Babu (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2, Dollars Colony, Ward – 7(2)(3), 1St Cross, 2Nd Main, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan: Aaggk 0809 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

28,425 sq.ft. 5. The assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11 wherein the assessee did not offer any long term capital gain (LTCG) on entering into joint venture agreement in respect of property. The AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 24.01.2014 on the basis

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

section 54B of the Act. The amount was kept\nin the nationalized bank and the assessee withdrew amount from the bank and\nincurred expenditure towards construction of the house property. This issue\nhas been put to rest by the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case\nof CIT vs Ramachandra Rao Vs., reported in (2015) 56 taxmann.com

SHRI. G B SHIVARAJAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

section 54F of the Act is allowed to the assessee. 4.5 In view of the above discussion, the income from capital gains is computed as under: Sale consideration – assessee’s share Rs.42,62,500 Less : Indexed cost of acquisition Rs.10,04,730 as per assessee’s computation -------------------- Long term capital gains Rs.32,57,770 Less : Deduction

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

28,08,000/- as capital gains income. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in relying on decisions which are distinguishable on facts and further erred in holding that what the assessee has done is construction of second and third floors which is a separate residential unit while as the Khata certificate as per BBMP records demonstrate that second and third

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 property of Rs.59,535/- and interest from deposits in banks of Rs.60,557/- along with NIL capital gains after claim of cost of acquisition & deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee in his computation of income had also claimed deduction u/s 80TTA of the Act and thus declared total income of Rs.1,10,090/-.The AO while completing

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

28. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The parking rent is akin to the rental income of the assessee on the above properties and the same is to be assessed as income from business instead of income from house property or income from other sources. This ground is remitted to the AO to consider

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

section 54 will have to be restricted to only one house etc, then on 20-01-2014 , the assessee made a fresh claim of deduction u/s 54 on only one residential flat i.e. at D 1407, Brigade Gateway, Bangalore, on an investment at Rs.99,28,616 while its registered sale deed had shown the value at Rs.16,40,000/- only

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 14A of the Act. The assessee explained before the AO that the investments which are likely to earn tax free income were made by the assessee out of his own funds and therefore there was no interest expenditure which can be attributed to earning of exempt income. The assessee took a stand that the assessee had sufficient capital

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 14A of the Act. The assessee explained before the AO that the investments which are likely to earn tax free income were made by the assessee out of his own funds and therefore there was no interest expenditure which can be attributed to earning of exempt income. The assessee took a stand that the assessee had sufficient capital