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

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

section 44AD of the Act. However, the AO observed\nthat the agreement with the SBI is a composite agreement. The\nassessee is not into the business of renting out properties and as\nsuch, the income from maintenance charges received has direct\nnexus with the property and derived from the property only and\nhence the amount received as per the lease

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, income from business and income from other ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli sources. This return of income was processed under section 143 (1) of the act on 14 July 2020 determining the assessee's total income

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, income from business and income from other ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli sources. This return of income was processed under section 143 (1) of the act on 14 July 2020 determining the assessee's total income

M/S. DEEPALI COMPANY PRIVAE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax (Earlier Known As :Deepali Co. Officer, Pvt. Ltd.) Ward – 2 (1)(2), 35, Commercial Street, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Pan: Aaacd5120H Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 03.0.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2016-17 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Not Allowing Business Loss For The Year Of Rs. 114,66.766/- On The Ground That The Business Of The Assessee Company Is Closed & There Are No Receipts From Operation Of Business.

House property. 7.2 Section 37 of the Income tax Act, 1961 is a section for allowability of business expenditure. It says "37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36

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

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

36,00,000/- claimed to have been spent for house\nconstruction is inclusive of 14,00,000/- spent earlier. Further it was held the assessee\nought to have deposited the unutilized sale consideration in a Bank account under\nthe Capital Gains Accounts Scheme. It has not been done. He has not furnished any\nproof in this regard along with

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

36. A reading of Section 54G makes it clear that the assessee is given a window of three years after the date on which transfer has taken place to “purchase” new machinery or plant or “acquire” building or land. We find that the High Court has completely missed the window of three years given to the assessee to purchase

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 property at Delhi on 07/09/2015 for a total consideration of Rs. 70,00,000/- which was originally purchased on 04/06/2007 for a consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-, the index cost of acquisition being Rs.33,35,209/-. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the long term capital gain as computed by the assessee amounting to Rs.36

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income. Accordingly, ground no. 19 of the Assessee is allowed. 18. The Ground no. 20 of the Appeal is with respect to the correct carry forward of losses. The Assessee has computed the carry forward of the losses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

GEM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Gem Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.45, Industry House, Ward – 3(1)(2), Race Course Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacg 4140 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.45, Industry House, Ward – 3(1)(2), Race Course Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AAACG 4140 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 28.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal

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

M/S. VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

house property in view of the ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . 10 judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of D.R.Puttanna Sons Private Limited v. CIT (supra). (iii) the rental income earned by the assessee from property and from equipment are separable in the facts of the given cases. Accordingly, the provisions of section

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

house property of ₹ 100,251,681/–. In the original assessment order, notice under section 143 (2) of the act was undisputedly issued. The DCIT V G Corp P Ltd AY 14-15 Page 9 of 14 xx. He once again referred to in sub section 143 (2), 143 (3) and section 263 of the act and submitted that the order

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

house property and income from other sources. The ld. AO has been entrusted a work of enquiry in respect of joint development agreement entered by the assesses coming under the jurisdiction of Range-7, Bangalore. During the course of enquiry proceedings, it is found that the assessee has entered into joint development agreement (JDA) dated 12.05.2004 with M/s.SJR Builders, No.49

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

house as provided in section 54F(1) of the Act by the by the date of filing of return of income. Accordingly, assessee was required under section 54F(4) of the Act to deposit the unutilised net consideration in the capital gains account scheme for the intended purpose. Assessee failed to adhere to this statutory requirement. From the expenditure details

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House property during the year, the annual value of the property must be determined and brought to tax during the year. Further, the AO observed that the purchaser only agreed to purchase the property and ownership had not been transferred yet as the sale deed was not executed during the year. In view of the same, the notional rent