Search: house property

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2350/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT

House Property". Denial of long-term capital loss of Rs 2,725,693 on sale of a painting 19. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and on facts, by denying the claim of long-term capital loss on sale of a painting of Rs 2,725,693 without appreciating the submissions furnished by Appellant in support

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2692/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryawamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2Section 54F

29A) of the Act defines Long term Capital asset as follows:- "long-term capital asset" means a capital asset which is not a short-term capital asset ; Sec.2(42A) of the Act defines Short Term Capital asset as follows:- “(42A) "short-term capital asset" means a capital asset held by an assessee for not more than thirty-six months immediately

L. VIVEKANANDA,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

ITA 1087/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R

house property in respect of the structure existing on the land for many years and had shown the property in the Wealth – tax return also, which all corroborate the fact that improvement was effected in construction of a building. 7. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not specifically dealing with this ground of appeal and there is no discussion

SRI MAHENDRASINGH RAMSINGH JADAV,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BENGALURU

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

ITA 32/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Jinita Chaterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54(1)

29A) and 2(42A) clarifies that holding period of the assessee starts from the date of issuance of allotment letter. Since allottee gets title of the property on the issuance of allotment letter and payment of first installment is only a consequential action upon which delivery of possession flows. Even if the sale deed or agreement to sell is executed

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

ITA 31/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.K.S.Hanumantha Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 54

29A) and 12 Sri.K S Hanumantha Rao. 2(42A) clarifies that holding period of the assessee starts from the date of issuance of allotment letter. Since allottee gets title of the property on the issuance of allotment letter and payment of first installment is only a consequential action upon which delivery of possession flows. Even if the sale deed

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

29A) of section 366 of the Constitution. The question arose whether a transaction of providing mobile phone service or telephone connection amounted to sale of goods in the special sense of transfer of right to use the goods. It was answered in the negative. The underlying basis of the decision is that there was no delivery of goods

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

29A) of section 366 of the Constitution. The question arose whether a transaction of providing mobile phone service or telephone connection amounted to sale of goods in the special sense of transfer of right to use the goods. It was answered in the negative. The underlying basis of the decision is that there was no delivery of goods

SHRI D R KUMARASWAMY ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2958/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54F

house to the extent of Rs.2,79,25,124/- by August 21, 2014 and claimed deduction u/s 54F while computing the capital ga ins. 6.3 In the context of above background facts, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the AO has disputed the claim of LTCG on transfer of the Site no. 37 having regard to the period of holding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3041/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

Properties India (P) Ltd. 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 Total 6,94,24,909 6,94,24,909 4.1.1 The Assessing Officer noticed that all the investments above were in group companies/concerns and had been made in the interest of the business activity of 3 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 the assessee. Further, majority of the investments above were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3040/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

Properties India (P) Ltd. 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 Total 6,94,24,909 6,94,24,909 4.1.1 The Assessing Officer noticed that all the investments above were in group companies/concerns and had been made in the interest of the business activity of 3 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 the assessee. Further, majority of the investments above were

SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1183/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V Chauhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

29A of the Act seeking admission of additional evidences viz., RTC certificate and the partition statement that was filed by the family members of the assessee in respect of the agricultural land in 2018 is placed. 7.3. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is also placed a crop validation certificate family tree, report of the Village Accountant