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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In that case, the issue in dispute was this as to whether as per the unregistered JDA, any transfer has taken place and any income has accrued to the assessee. Whereas in the present case, the dispute is this as to whether the assessee has purchased a house

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

section 50C are applicable and held that transaction is taxable for the year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer Page 5 of 21 thus treated Rs.2,77,06,000/- as the sale consideration received by the assessee and calculated income from capital gains accordingly. 7. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the action of the AO in reopening the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

house property and income from other sources. The ld. AO has been entrusted a work of enquiry in respect of joint development agreement entered by the assesses coming under the jurisdiction of Range-7, Bangalore. During the course of enquiry proceedings, it is found that the assessee has entered into joint development agreement (JDA) dated 12.05.2004 with M/s.SJR Builders, No.49

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

section 54F before its amendment can be extended to a residential house purchased outside India 11. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in light of the judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction.” 7.4 Regarding non-claiming of deduction in the return of income filed by the assessee

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

53A of the TP Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act will not apply in a situation before us. The argument of the Ld. D.R. is that the income of the assessee has to be assessed as business income as the assessee received sales consideration and that amount

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

53A of the TP Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act will not apply in a situation before us. The argument of the Ld. D.R. is that the income of the assessee has to be assessed as business income as the assessee received sales consideration and that amount

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

53A of the TP Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act will not apply in a situation before us. The argument of the Ld. D.R. is that the income of the assessee has to be assessed as business income as the assessee received sales consideration and that amount

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

house property, income from partnership firms in which they were partners and also income from other sources. They filed their return of income for the subject AY declaring a total income of Nil and Rs 2,68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section

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

house property, income from partnership firms in which they were partners and also income from other sources. They filed their return of income for the subject AY declaring a total income of Nil and Rs 2,68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section

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

properties vide Ground Nos. 6 & 7 in memo of appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the two houses at Mavalli were registered in the name of the assessee for Rs. 81,90,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini

SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD MIKKLINENI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

housing workmen and security personnel and storage of material,. the developer shall remove its men and material and vacate the schedule property on the completion of the project or on termination or rescission of this agreement for any reason whatsoever; notwithstanding the use of the schedule property by the developer for the project, the possession of the schedule property shall

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

section 2[47] r.w.s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act alongwith the computation of the quantum of capital gains; (d) Claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act in respect of the built-up area to be received upon joint development that comprises residential apartments, which was regarded as one residential house

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

53A of TP Act). According to TP Act, on agreement to sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that the sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter

SRI. GANGA POORNA PRASAD,MYSURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Sri Ganga Poorna Prasad, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #718, Ii Main, 1St Cross, 1St Block, Income Tax, Ramakrishnagar, Circle-2(1), Mysuru – 570 026. Mysuru. Pan : Aiqpp 5131 K Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru

53A of the transfer of Property Act 1882 (herein after TPA) and as the appellant is contesting the application of this provision in the present case, I have examined closely the ingredients of the above provisions. 5.6 Further, the amendment to section 54 F (1) by substituting the words Page 9 of 10 'constructed', one residential house

SMT.VANI SHREE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 2(47)(v)of the Act r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act took place on that date and hence the capital gains arising from the JDA was to be assessed in A.Y. 201516. The AO accepted this submission of the assessee as declared in the return of income. 2.4 In the return, the assessee had shown full

SMT.KONDAMMA ,BANGALORE ` vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Kondamma, No. 122/2, 6Th Main, The Income Tax Opp Srs Printer, Officer, Kammagondanhalli, Vs. Ward – 6 (2) (4), Jalahalli West, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 015. Pan: Atypk2334A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2019

53A. Part performance. – Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee

SR. N PRATHAP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

house under the facts and circumstances of the case. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the mandatory conditions of "transferee being in possession" and "willingness to perform" as envisaged under section 53A of the Transfer of 3. Property

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUJEEB URRAHMAN, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

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

house. The assessee was entitled for exemption under section 54F as the intention of the statute provided in section 54F had been fully satisfied by the assessee. The expression 'of the nature referred to in section 53A' in sub-clause (v) of section 2(47)(v) of the 1961 Act, cannot be stretched to refer to an amendment that