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

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

sections 5 & 122 of the TP Act read together, it emerges that a company being a living person can transfer property by way of gift. 73. As per sec. 122 of the TP Act, 1882 the following are the ingredients of a gift valid in law: Transfer of existing movable or immovable property Transfer made voluntarily Without consideration By donor

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

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

property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of [one year before or two years A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek after the date on which the transfer took place purchased], or has within a period of three years after that date [constructed, one residential house in India], then

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. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

section 27(iiib) of the Act. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, where the income may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be treated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business of the assessee. What is the test which has to be applied to determine whether

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

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

house property.' When Section 56(2)(iii) makes it explicitly clear that the income from machinery or fixture belonging to the assessee

SREE SESHACHALA BUILDERS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

house property.' When Section 56(2)(iii) makes it explicitly clear that the income from machinery or fixture belonging to the assessee

M/S ABHILASH SOFTWARE & DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2005-06

house property.' When Section 56(2)(iii) makes it explicitly clear that the income from machinery or fixture belonging to the assessee

PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

56(iii) of IT Act of 1961. In this case, the letting of building is along with letting machinery, plant or furniture required for ancillaries services and therefore, we hold that the alternative plea of the appellant that in case the income is not to be assessed under the head “income from house property” then it is required

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

56(iii) of IT Act of 1961. In this case, the letting of building is along with letting machinery, plant or furniture required for ancillaries services and therefore, we hold that the alternative plea of the appellant that in case the income is not to be assessed under the head “income from house property” then it is required

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

property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained in section 142A shall apply in respect of an assessment made

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

SHRI.RAMAKRISHNA ASHWATH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ramakrishna Aswatgh, No. 40, 1St Floor, 1St Main, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, 3Rd Stage, Bhel Officer, Layout, Vs. Ward – 6 (3) (3), Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 080. Pan: Adrpa6087D Appellant Respondent

56,01,096/-. The second part of the claim of the assessee included the amount spent by the assessee for the construction of 2nd and 3rd floor on the same property because property purchased by the assessee was consisting of ground floor and first floor only. The amount of investment for such construction

M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property”. Whereas, the rental income from equipment was considered as “income from other sources” by the assessee. The A.O., however, reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” and disallowed standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act for the following two reasons, namely, (i) the assessee is not the owner of the property

M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property”. Whereas, the rental income from equipment was considered as “income from other sources” by the assessee. The A.O., however, reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” and disallowed standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act for the following two reasons, namely, (i) the assessee is not the owner of the property

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property”. Whereas, the rental income from equipment was considered as “income from other sources” by the assessee. The A.O., however, reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” and disallowed standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act for the following two reasons, namely, (i) the assessee is not the owner of the property