LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property as on the date\nof investment in the new property and fully eligible to claim\nexemption U/s 54E of the Act. He further submitted that, the\nassessee, has only 50% owner of property cited above along with Mrs\nBhagawanth Kaur in one and with Mrs Harleen Kaur in other\nproperty and no other properties were held

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

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

50,000/- per\nacre was declared on 06.08.2006. The claim that he has filed plea for\nenhanced compensation and hence higher value be taken. So market value\nwas considered as per settled value rather than adhoc value. So full value of\nFMV as on 01.04.001 is Rs.9,89,754/-. The property was sold on 25.01.2018\nfor claim of deduction under

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

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 56(2)(x) of the Act is applicable from 01.04.2017 and the case is\nrelated to the Financial Year 2016-17, the assessee has made part\n(substantial) payment before 31.03.2017 and at that time the charging\nsection was not in force in the statute book. Therefore, the addition made by\nthe AO is beyond the provision

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

Y. MANJULA REDDY vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

house property. Hence, it cannot be said that the third proviso to section 54F of the Act is violated. 15. With regard to the cost of acquisition of the building, the Ld. CIT(A) took the view that (a) the expenditure incurred on interiors, renovation, furnishing, etc. after registration of plot i.e. after 24.2.2007 cannot be taken as part

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-10(2), BANGALORE vs. SMT. Y MANJULA REDDY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

house property. Hence, it cannot be said that the third proviso to section 54F of the Act is violated. 15. With regard to the cost of acquisition of the building, the Ld. CIT(A) took the view that (a) the expenditure incurred on interiors, renovation, furnishing, etc. after registration of plot i.e. after 24.2.2007 cannot be taken as part

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

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

50,000/-. Therefore, the assessee is liable to Sri K. Satish Kumar, Bangalore Page 11 of 47 deduct tax at source for all these payments u/s 194C of the Act. Once, the provisions of sec. 194C of the Act is involved, all these payments can also be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This line of action

NAGARAJ DESIRAZU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

house property 85,66,165 85,60,904 54 EC. Investment in bonds 50,00,000 50,00,000 Taxable Capital gain 57,12,253 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid computation of capital gain by both the assessees, they had claimed deduction while computing capital claim exemption under section

DESIRAZU SUNDARA SIVA RAO,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

house property 85,66,165 85,60,904 54 EC. Investment in bonds 50,00,000 50,00,000 Taxable Capital gain 57,12,253 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid computation of capital gain by both the assessees, they had claimed deduction while computing capital claim exemption under section

VIJAY LAKHMICHAND ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

50% of 22,70,045) as cost of acquisition and accordingly, we allowed this ground of appeal of the assessee. 6.3 Now with regard to disallowance of Rs.25,72,807/- claimed towards cost of improvement, the AO from the computation of income seen that the assessee made an expenses of Rs.25,72,807/- towards items of personal effect such

NISHA VIJAY ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

50% of 22,70,045) as cost of acquisition and accordingly, we allowed this ground of appeal of the assessee. 6.3 Now with regard to disallowance of Rs.25,72,807/- claimed towards cost of improvement, the AO from the computation of income seen that the assessee made an expenses of Rs.25,72,807/- towards items of personal effect such

MR. SRIDHAR MURTHY S,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sridhar Murthy S Vs The Income Tax Officer Karle Zenith, 100 Ft Kemapura Nfac, Delhi Main Road, Kasaba Holbli Nagavara Village Bengaluru 560043 Pan – Awzps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Rama Raju, Ca Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Nfac, Delhi/Cit(A)’S Order Dated 28.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) , Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities On Facts & Circumstances Of Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.2,19,796/- Under The Provisions Of Section 270A Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

property loss to be carried forward to the tune of Rs. 4,22,012/- instead of Rs. 18,87,322/- claimed in the return of income. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act was initiated for misreporting of income. During the course of penalty proceedings it was submitted that there were two housing loans and the aggregate

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

50% of the built-\nup area. Subsequently, the assessee executed a POA on 17 August\n2012 granting the developer the authority to convey, sell, transfer\nthe property. It was contended by the assessee that the transfer\ntook place only in AY 2013-14, subsequent to executing the POA\ndated 17 August 2012. However, the Assessing Officer held that\ncapital gains