S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property as provided in section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal Nos.5, 6 & 7 raised by the assessee are allowed.” In the present case, the facts involved are similar to that of Smt. Indu Chandra (supra). So, respectfully following the order

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" shall be computed after making some deductions. One of the deduction allowed u/s.24(b) is as follows: “Sec.24(b ) where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital: Provided that in respect of property referred to in sub-section (2) of section

S.M. VINOD (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SRI. S M MUNIYAPPA),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

50 taxrnan.com 55. The assessee does not deny about two residential units consisting of ground floor and first floor and admits that the ground floor is self-occupied and the first floor has been let out on rent. However, the assessee submitted that the house in question is a single house with two entrances having Ground and First Floor with

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

50 (SC). It was thereafter submitted that notwithstanding error committed by the assessee in declaring the lease rental income from SEZ under the head ‘income from house property’, the income so derived essentially and inherently remains the business income ITA No. 202 & 203/Bang/2019 Page 4 of 10 and is chargeable under the head ‘income from business/profession’. It was contended that

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

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

house as per the conditions stipulated in section 54F of the Act. Since both grounds are inter- related, we consider these two grounds collectively. 8. Facts of the issue are that during the year under appeal, the assessee had sold the property located at Crystal Arcade, Balmatta Road, Mangalore on 06.12.2012 for a consideration of Rs.62,50

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

50% of licence fee/rent receipts, instead of 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

section was not in force in the statute book. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is beyond the provision of the Income Tax Act. Our this view is supported by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal vs National E Assessment Center in ITA NO. 202/MUM/2023 order dated

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, since the consideration received out of his share of original asset has been utilized and invested in purchase of a new house property in the name of his son, Sri. Jagadeesh, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute

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

property working out to 5238.50 sq.ft. of land & 150 sq.ft. of building and the another one by the sale deed dated 01-07-2006 wherein the remaining 50% of the undivided share i.e. 5238.50 sq.ft. of land & 150 sq.ft. of building, thus, the entire 10477 sqft. of land & 300 sq ft of building was purchased for a consideration of Rs.15

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

50% portion of the built space in these buildings for a term of 65 years. In Page 3 of 14 respect of the third property, Nitesh Lexington Avenue, the assessee had built this building on the land which was leased from the Archdiocese of Bangalore for a period of 40 years for a payment of land rent, which comprised

SRI SURESH.C,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2006-07

Section 54 of the income Tax Act. Hence, we do not see any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee also pointed out that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has been followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the 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 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

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

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

section is restricted to proportionate amount invested in purchase of new residential site for the purpose of construction of new residential house after sale of the original asset and also amount invested in construction of property. The intention of legislature was that either the assessee has to purchase or construct new residential house out of net sale consideration received

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

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

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

section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, it seems to us that the income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. A person may construct a house according to his plans, requirements and compulsions. A person may construct a residential house in such a manner that he may use the ground floor

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

property purchased one year prior to the transfer, which gave rise to the capital gain or may be in the alternative have expressly made the exemption in case of prior purchase, subject to purchase from any advance that might have been received for the transfer of the residential house which resulted in the capital gain. 23. At the cost

K.V. SUBRAMANYAM vs. ITO,

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri K.V.Subramaniam, No.15, Sai Smaran Apartments, 17Th Cross, 35 A Main, Jp Nagar Vi Phase, Bangalore-560078. … Appellant Pa No.Aqgps 0686 J Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 15(2) Bangalore. … Respondent

50,000/- towards disallowance of House Property loss, when evidence is of certificate of interest and statement of housing loan from M/s. Citibank NA was produced on 30.11.2011. Such being the case, treating the same as unexplained investment is bad in law. 6. The Learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned Commissioner have erred in adding

SHRI.RAGHURAM P NAMBYAR,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

property along with house thereon and therefore immediately thereafter, Sri Raghuram P Nambyar, the husband made over 50% of the sale consideration i.e. Rs.3,00,45,025 to the account of his wife, Smt. Veena Nambyar’s account. In view of the above, it was argued that both the assessees are entitled to claim the deductions / exemptions under Section