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

house property, the amount is to be deposited with the ‘Capital Gain Account Scheme’ with bank within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, which as per ld. JCIT DR , the assessee failed to do so. Prayers were made by ld. JCIT DR to deny deduction under Section 54

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 54 of the Act, the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee had sold his house property

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

house property. The delay in investment was beyond the control of the assessee. However, we observe from the answer to question No.2 in the same case, in para 4.1, that if such investment is made in the bank account as stipulated in section 54

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

property is considered, it would continue to\nbe owned by co-owners. Joint ownership is different from absolute\nownership. In the case of residential unit, none of the co-owners can\nclaim that he is the owner of residential house. Ownership of a\nresidential house, in our opinion, means ownership to the exclusion of\nall others. Therefore, where a house

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

section 54(2) of the Act or invested in construction of new residential house within the stipulated time, then assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 54F of the Act and the AO could postpone the taxing of the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. However, in the present case, there was no circumstances which show

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. BAGALUR KRISHNAIAH SETTY VIJAY SHANKER, BENGALURU

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

section 54 towards the unconstructed\nportion of the house property.\n4. Aggrieved, assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

54 or sub-section (2) of section 54B or sub-section (2) of section 54D or sub-section (4) of section 54F or sub-section (2) of section 54G or sub-section (2) of section 54GB , shall utilise the whole or any part of the amount so withdrawn for the purposes specified in sub-section (1) of the section

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

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

54(F) deals with capital gains on transfer of certain capital assets not to be\ncharged in case, of investment on house. It reads as under:\n54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged income of\ninvestment in residential house. — (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4),\nwhere, in the case

R. JAYANNA HUF,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

house" for the purpose of section 54. Profit on sale of property is used for residence. The four residential flats

MAHESH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

house to make\nit better.\ne) No clarity under which section (i.e., 54 or 54F), the deduction\nwas claimed and allowed considering the nature and source of\nre-investment of LTCG.\n2.3 From the above, it is evident that the deduction u/s. 54/54F\nhas been allowed without proper examination of relevant details\nand materials. Accordingly, the assessment was completed

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUNI REDDY SANTHOSH REDDY, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

house, hence it is proposed to disallow the exemption allowed amounting to Rs. 82,50,000 .............. the assessee". This is incorrect as the appellant has complied with the conditions stipulated under section 54 - i.e (a) reinvestment of capital gain in a residential property

PUSHPALATHA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

54 of the Act with regard to investment made\nfrom sale proceeds of the property. The assessment was selected for scrutiny by\nissuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The Assessment Order was\npassed under section 143(3) of the Act (Order dated 09.12.2019) accepting the\nreturned income.\n3.\nHowever, during the course of assessment proceedings

SHRI. PANKAJ KAPUR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

54 of the income tax act to have purchased a residential flat for Rs.1,40,00,000/-. In support of the said claim, the assessee furnished a copy of the allotment letter of flat in Project Elegant Ozone Promenade from Elegant properties on payment of Rs.1,00,00,000/- vide cheque dated 27.08.2015. The assessee also furnished a copy

MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

house to make\nit better.\ne) No clarity under which section (i.e., 54 or 54F), the deduction\nwas claimed and allowed considering the nature and source of\nre-investment of LTCG.\n2.3 From the above, it is evident that the deduction u/s. 54/54F\nhas been allowed without proper examination of relevant details\nand materials. Accordingly, the assessment was completed

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

CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

house property and accordingly, the entire net consideration received amounting to Rs.8,00,00,001/- is brought to tax under the head “ Long term capital gains”. Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore Page 5 of 14 3.2 Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

RAKESH GANAPATHY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

property whether or not the\ntransfer takes place.\nIt is further proposed to make consequential amendments in section 271D\nand section 271E to provide penalty for failure to comply with the amended\nprovisions of section 269SS and 269T, respectively.\nThese amendments will take effect from 1st day of June, 2015.\n[Clauses 66, 67, 69 & 70]\nPage