SHAMBALA PROPERTIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLR-12(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Shambala Properties Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.7, Rest House Road, Circle – 12(3) Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. (Presently – Dcit – 7(1)(2)), Pan No : Aahcs 1313 C Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Elamurusu G, Jcit (Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020

57,26,983 ii) Interest paid : 15,65,010 iii) Pre construction periods interest : 1,33,509 __________ House Property or total income 1,16,64,440 3. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. Against this, assessee is in appeal once again before us. After hearing both

M/S MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15 M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, #41, Mantri House, Dcit Circle – 4 (1) (2), Vittal Malya Road, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560001 Pan : Aaacg4009N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – 4 Bengaluru Dated 30.11.2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

57,179/- on the building known as “Business @ Page 3 of 15 Mantri “at Pune and in Ground No. 3, the grievance of the assessee is about disallowance of interest of Rs. 605,41,088/- u/s 36 (1) (iii) in respect of funds borrowed for construction of the same building known as “Business @ Mantri” at Pune but the basis

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

House property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under Section 56 of the Act. The Company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus fund in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interests will be chargeable under Section

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

House property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under Section 56 of the Act. The Company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus fund in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interests will be chargeable under Section

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

57 ITR 306 (SC). 3.1 Adverting further, the ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to a Circular No.16/2017 dated 25.4.2017 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). With reference to the Circular, it was pointed out that the issue whether income arising from letting out of premises/developing space along with other amenities in an industrial park/SEZ

M/S ESTEEM MALL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6(3((1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year:

57,52,392 for the year. Consequently, the income of the assessee was enhanced to that extent. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The main contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee has received income from house property of sub-letting and collected rent of Rs.57,52,392 and paid rent

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

57,770/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant has utilized the capital gains for acquiring a house property, by making payments to the seller of the house property and has made a proper claim of deduction under section

VENKATRAM NANJUNDAIAH SRIDHAR,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year: 2016-17

house property, income from business of a partnership firm of which he was a partner, interest income on loans & advances and deposits. In the return of income under the head ‘income from other sources’, the assessee declared a loss of Rs.16,76,696. The computation of income under the head ‘income from other sources’ was as follows:- Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

57,60,000 1 Disallowance of Office Rent 1,67,58,000 2 Disallowance of Land Rent 67,77,347 3 Interest Paid On Term Loan 4 Disallowance of Depreciation on Interiors 22,24,430 5 Parking Fees 40,96,500 6 Disallowance of Repairs and Maintenance 25,05,516 5,53,430 7 Disallowance of Inauguration Expenses 8 Profession

SH.KADAMBI NARAHARI,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD 15(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

57, 77, 137/- and arrived the long term capital gains at Nil. ITA.667/Bang/2016 Page - 3 04. When the AO by his letter dated 03-12-72013 , inter alia, informed him that the wordings used in Section 54 (1)(i) & (ii) is a singular house, i.e. "new asset" and 'a residential house' and as such the benefit of section 54 will

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 14A of the Act. The assessee explained before the AO that the investments which are likely to earn tax free income were made by the assessee out of his own funds and therefore there was no interest expenditure which can be attributed to earning of exempt income. The assessee took a stand that the assessee had sufficient capital

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 14A of the Act. The assessee explained before the AO that the investments which are likely to earn tax free income were made by the assessee out of his own funds and therefore there was no interest expenditure which can be attributed to earning of exempt income. The assessee took a stand that the assessee had sufficient capital

RAVINDRA SUNKU,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property 3 IT(I.T)A Nos.65 & 66/Bang/2015 declared in the respective returns in equal amounts representing rent and service charges received from the property which was purchased and held in joint names was assessed as ‘income from other sources’. Aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer the assesses filed appeals before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals

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 within the time prescribed under the IT Act 1961 for the AY2Ol5-16. Rs.56,57,714/- The Appellant also prays for permission to add falter the grounds of Appeal before 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

GURU PAVAN RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property, business and other sources. The facts of the case that the assessees are one of the promoter shareholders of M/s. Rangsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as “REPL”] holding about 2,66,565, and 5,05,670 equity shares in the said company. 4. During the financial year relevant to the earlier assessment year

ANIRUDH MURTHY RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property, business and other sources. The facts of the case that the assessees are one of the promoter shareholders of M/s. Rangsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as “REPL”] holding about 2,66,565, and 5,05,670 equity shares in the said company. 4. During the financial year relevant to the earlier assessment year

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

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