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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property at Airport Road is nil u/s 23(1)(c) of the Act. 9. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the value of Jayanagar property is unexplained even though the appellant had accounted the value of the site in its books of account. 10. That the learned Commissioner

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

50C (2) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. Therefore, the relevant grounds of appeal of the appellant are allowed. 5.10 The appellant also filed an alternative ground as follows: "Alternatively, as mentioned in the share purchase agreement the appellant group has entered into a share purchase agreement with the shareholders of the Shailendra

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. 11. The ground of appeal in respect of processing fee and pre-payment charges to be allowed u/s 24(b), the learned AR substantiated his argument relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pentagram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.3713/Mu/2010 & ITA No.4526/Mum/2010 dated 12/08/2011 and referred to paras

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. 11. The ground of appeal in respect of processing fee and pre-payment charges to be allowed u/s 24(b), the learned AR substantiated his argument relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pentagram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.3713/Mu/2010 & ITA No.4526/Mum/2010 dated 12/08/2011 and referred to paras

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. 11. The ground of appeal in respect of processing fee and pre-payment charges to be allowed u/s 24(b), the learned AR substantiated his argument relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pentagram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.3713/Mu/2010 & ITA No.4526/Mum/2010 dated 12/08/2011 and referred to paras

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. DR. RAJAN PAI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. George George Ki.T.A No.1290/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. Dr. Rajan Pai, Block No.1B, Jakkur Plantation Village, Yelahanka Main Road, Bengaluru .. Respondent Pan : Agbpp2795G Assessee By : Shri. Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit -Iii Heard On : 12.04.2016 Pronounced On : 29.04.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

house. As per the AO, fair market value of the bonus shares issued by MEMG was required to be computed in accordance with Rule 11U and 11UA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’ in ITA.1290/Bang/2015 Page - 3 short). He applied Rule 11UA and determined the fair market value of the 1,00,00,000 number of bonus shares

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

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

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

SMT. SARITHA JAIN,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-1(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 51/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Saritha Jain, The Income Tax Flat No. 3, 28/1, Officer Gowri Kunj, (International Palace Cross Road, Taxation), Vasanth Nagar, Ward – 1(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aedpj9216L Appellant Respondent

section 50C and recomputed the capital gains by adopting the guidance value as under: 2.5 Further, the Ld.AO also noted that the assessee was in possession of more than one residential house property

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

50C of the Act is unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the in case of dispute in value of the property, the valuation of the property ought to have been referred to a Valuation Officer in accordance with the provisions of section

SMT. G N LAKSHMI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2012 – 13 Smt. G. N. Lakshmi, Represented By Poa Holder Sri G. R. Nagaraj, Vs. Ito, Ward – 5 (2) (3), No. 11, Rajathagiri, Rangarao Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560004 Pan: Aocpg8316F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth G. S., C. A. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

section 50C of I. T. Act to adopt sale consideration of Rs. 17.30 Lacs in place of sale proceeds of Rs. 5.50 Lacs for relinquishment of Development Rights. 3. In course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that as noted by the AO in Para 5, page 2 of the assessment order, the assessee

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and the Stay Petition filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

House Property’. ii. Addition of Capital Gains of Rs.8,36,25,000. iii. Addition u/s.50C of the Act – Rs.1,14,37,500. iv. Disallowance of claim u/s.80C of the Act – Rs.1,00,000. 4.1.3 The learned Authorised Representative, in support of the assessee's contentions drew our attention to para 7 of the impugned order. Therein, the learned CIT (Appeals

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank of Commissioner of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. PAN: ACWPT0308C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Instant appeal

SMT.B S LEELAVATHI REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR SRI B S N HARI ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt. B. S. Leelavathi, Rep. By Legal Heir Sri B S N Hari, No.1, Gutte Anjaneya Temple Street, Hosur Main Road, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560 027 ….Appellant Pan Aappl 8104M Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sundar Rajan, Addl. Cit (D.R)

house property and income other sources. The assessee has filed the return of income electronically on 12.04.2016 for Assessment Year 2010-11 with total income of Rs.1,01,970/-.The A.O found during the F.Y. 2009-10, the assessee has sold the immovable property admeasuring two acres of land to M/s. JB & Hara Properties for a consideration of Rs.10

SRI SUBHASH CHAND AGARWAL,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal, The Income Tax #27/6, New Bamboo Officer, Vs. Bazaar, 3Rd Cross, Ward – 5 [2] [2], Bangalore – 560 002. Bangalore. Pan: Achpa1073E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019

section 50C and making addition of Rs. 4 Lakhs on account of difference in value as per sale deed and as per stamp duty value then also the net long term capital gain will be Nil because the eligible exemption / deduction u/s. 54(1) will be higher than that amount of capital gain. When we examine the applicability of this

ITO, DAVANGERE vs. SMT.T.S. VIJAYALAKSHMI, DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

house property’, under the head ‘income from capital gains’ at nil and under the head ‘income from other sources’ at Rs.22,130/-, total amounting to Rs.1,08,436/-. The return of income was processed under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act) accepting the income returned. Certain information was received by the AO through Range Head

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property and Other Sources. Such income was the same as that which was declared in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on 13.09.2014 and revised return of income filed on 26.09.2016. During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri K M Deekshith at the office of M/s Coffee Day Global Limited

SHRI. SALEH MOHD. SALIM,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

House Vs. Ward 1(2)(1) Apartments, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : ADLPS1984M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sreehari Kutsa, CA Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR Date of Date of Hearing : 23.01.2020 Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dated 19.09.2019. The relevant