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

49(4) of the Act which provides that where the capital gain arises from transfer of property the value of which has been subject to Income-tax u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act, the cost of acquisition of such property shall be deemed to be the value which has been taken in to account for the purpose

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

49,41,000/- as unexplained investment in the property. 10. The Appellant craves for leave to add, to delete from or amend the grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income belatedly on 29th March, 2013 under section 139(4), declaring total income of Rs. 8,32,830/-. The return

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

BASHEER NOORULLAH KHAN,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Basheer Noorullah Khan, No. 116B, 5Th Block, Khb The Commissioner Of Colony, Koramangala, Vs. Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore – 560 034. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk3037H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in Section 53A. The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression “of the nature referred to in Section 53A” in Section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive at the opposite conclusion

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

49,95,654/- was offered to tax under the head Income from House Property and the sum of Rs. 26,46,292/- towards providing of various services like lift maintenance, security charges, water charges, staff expenses, maintenance of common areas, providing of electricity etc., and offered it under the head Income from other sources. Further since the entire building

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

house for his own residential purpose, therefore, no transfer took place during FY 2006-07 and therefore, the question of offering the proceeds of transfer for capital gains tax does not arise in the A.Y. 2007-08. According to the CIT(A), the execution of sale deed by BDA in favour of the assessee took place only on 11.10.1995. Therefore

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

section 54 of the Act. Deduction u/s 54F of the Act is available on sale of any capital asset other than residential house. The assessee’s request for allowing claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act was denied by the A.O. for the reason that the assessee owned more than one residential house other than the new asset

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

housing society, who was referred to as the owner, and two developers. Strewn throughout the agreement is the fact that the owner, being absolutely seized and possessed of the property, was desirous of assigning its development rights for developing the same. [Para 13] • A reading of the JDA shows that, it is essentially an agreement to facilitate development

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

49%, as annual letting value. Similarly, the Ld. Principal CIT took the view that revenue generated by way of other income including advertisements, parking, kiosk, Mall promotions, should have formed part of annual value of the property and 100% of revenue should have been offered by the owners as income from house property. It may be recollected that the Mall

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

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

House Property', erred in disallowing the interest on capital borrowed and used for acquiring the said building complex. 2.7. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer having allowed interest in respect of Rs. 45 Crores which was utilised towards re-payment of old loan, have erred in disallowing interest in respect of balance Rs. 19.50 Crores which was utilised

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

House Property', erred in disallowing the interest on capital borrowed and used for acquiring the said building complex. 2.7. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer having allowed interest in respect of Rs. 45 Crores which was utilised towards re-payment of old loan, have erred in disallowing interest in respect of balance Rs. 19.50 Crores which was utilised

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

House Property', erred in disallowing the interest on capital borrowed and used for acquiring the said building complex. 2.7. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer having allowed interest in respect of Rs. 45 Crores which was utilised towards re-payment of old loan, have erred in disallowing interest in respect of balance Rs. 19.50 Crores which was utilised

SHIVAKUMAR KHENY (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

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

section is within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place. In the event of construction of new asset i.e., one residential house in India, such construction has to be within a period of three years after the date of transfer. In the present case, the Assessee has claimed deduction

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 54F of the Act by holding that the said benefit is available only in case of one residential flat for the relevant assessment year. 6.3 The AO erred in not allowing the said exemption u/s. 54F of the Act even to the extent of flats acquired by the Appellant, situated in the same building

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 54F of the Act by holding that the said benefit is available only in case of one residential flat for the relevant assessment year. 6.3 The AO erred in not allowing the said exemption u/s. 54F of the Act even to the extent of flats acquired by the Appellant, situated in the same building

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. The claim of the Assessee is that it is chargeable to tax as profits and gains of business and profession. 5. Coming to the ground no. 17, with respect to the depreciation, the fact shows that Assessee has made an addition of Rs. 15,56,16,965/- and intangible assets were added

SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDYT vs. DCIT,

In the result, ITA No.1778/Bang/2012 (A

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

section 49(1) of the Act are not applicable. In this regard, the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Atul G Puranik (supra) is relevant. At para 10.3 thereof, it is held as under : “10.3 However, in order to apply the mandate of s.49