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

Section 32(1) of the Act.” 5. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the reasoning given by the assessee and therefore disallowed the business losses to the tune of Rs. 5,20,16,620/- and treated the entire rental receipt as income from the house property. After treating the rental income as income from the house property, the Assessing

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

40 taxmann.com 528 (Hyderabad- Trib), wherein the ITAT held that the assessee would not be eligible for deduction under Section 54F of the Act even if other residential house is owned by assessee wholly or partially. The CIT(A) also relied on decision Page 20 of 31 of Karnataka High Court High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income

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

Housing Society (2000) 3 Mah LJ 131]. It is precisely for this reason that the legislature has introduced section 2(47)(v) read with section 45 which indicates that capital gains is taxable in the year in which such transactions are entered into even if the transfer of immovable property is not effective or complete under the general law.”(emphasis

IVORYBRICK HOMES LLP,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

House, Income Tax, Millers Road, Circle-1(2)(1), Vasanth Nagar, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 052. PAN – AAEFI 4636 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri C Sandeep, C.A Appellant by Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 13-01-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 01-02-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals have been filed by assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

40 (a) (ia). Accordingly this ground raised by revenue stands dismissed. 95. Ground No. 7 has been raised by revenue against the deletion of disallowance made for non-deduction of TDS on payments towards professional and legal fees. The Ld.Sr.DR placed reliance on orders passed by the Ld.AO and the draft assessment order. 96. At the outset the Ld.Counsel submitted

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

40,000/-. The assessee received a sum of Rs.1,51,20,000/- as her share in the sale consideration for sale of ½ share of right title and interest over the property. 3. For assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed a Return of income, declaring Long term Capital Gain on Dr. Devika Gunasheela, Bengaluru Page 3 of 19 sale

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:

40,256. 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

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

house property, it was not claiming depreciation on such properties which were let out by the firm. Further, while business losses were set off against the property income for the same year, depreciation on such properties let out were not set off. 35. It was submitted that during the scrutiny asst. proceedings

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

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 Assessee by : Shri Murali Krishna, CA Revenue by : Shri Tshering Ongda, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant

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; (v) Assessee must have within a period of two years after that date purchased another property; (vi) Property purchased must be residential; (vii) Exemption would be available only to the extent the sale proceeds are utilised; (viii) Where re-investment in a residential property is not made before due date for filing report, amount not so utilised till such

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

40,00,000/- between April' 2003 to September' 2003. After making the payment, a registered sale deed had not been executed in favour of the assessee before completion of two years period pursuant to Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.09.2003. The consideration received by her under sale dated 04.02.2003 has been paid by the assessee for purchasing another property and reinvestment

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 contemplates transfer of building and lands appurtenant thereto, with the same being a residential house. The property transferred was a building used as a house and the lands appurtenant thereto. d. Merely because the house was 'small' vis-à-vis the entire property did not render the residential property as a *land'. The entire property was used

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (A) BANGALORE-6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

property. We find a lot of force in the argument of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax regarding the non-committal of the assessee company in pursuing the legal remedies available before it for the recovery of the amount. Therefore, in these circumstances, we do not find that the debt has become bad debt. It was only a case

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (A) BANGALORE-6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

property. We find a lot of force in the argument of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax regarding the non-committal of the assessee company in pursuing the legal remedies available before it for the recovery of the amount. Therefore, in these circumstances, we do not find that the debt has become bad debt. It was only a case

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; (v) Assessee must have within a period of two years after that date purchased another property; (vi) Property purchased must be residential; (vii) Exemption would be available only to the extent the sale proceeds are utilised; (viii) Where re-investment in a residential property is not made before due date for filing report, amount not so utilised till such

M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

housing projects. It also undertake maintenance of project developed by them. For a year under consideration, it filed its return of income on 27/09/2011 declaring total income of ₹ 16,63,25,758/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, was issued to assessee, in response to which representative

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

housing projects. It also undertake maintenance of project developed by them. For a year under consideration, it filed its return of income on 27/09/2011 declaring total income of ₹ 16,63,25,758/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, was issued to assessee, in response to which representative

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

housing projects. It also undertake maintenance of project developed by them. For a year under consideration, it filed its return of income on 27/09/2011 declaring total income of ₹ 16,63,25,758/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, was issued to assessee, in response to which representative