M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

6. White filing the return of income, since the rental income was offered under the head 'Income from house property', the appellant did not claim depreciation allowance under section

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

section is that the construction should be completed within the specified period. 17. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and in facts, in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant has provided details of all residential house property 'owned' by him and the learned CIT(A) has inadvertently considered a leased property outside India as a property owned

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 held under trust wholly for charitable purposes in the case of charitable organizations and for determining accumulation of income required thereof keeping in view provisions of Section 11 , and secondly while computing the income in commercial parlance by taking into effect depreciation expenses on such capital assets under Section 32 of the 1961 Act. Section 11 falls within Chapter

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property. 13,47,060 5. The CIT(A) erred in holding that section 44AD does not apply to the maintenance charges received from State Bank of India. 13,47,060 6

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

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

MR. ARUNKUMAR NATHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 54 in respect of two residential houses has observed in paras 2 to 4 as under : “ 2. The assessee claimed exemption on capital gains on sale of flat on the ground of acquisition of two houses. The AO set off the capital gain against one of the houses but held the claim not to be admissible against second house

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

6 ITA No.214/Bang/2014. For Assessment Year 2009-10, the Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2014 held as under: “10. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section 14 in Chapter - IV of the Income Tax Act provides heads of income namely (a) salary (b) (....) (c) income from house property

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

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

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

properties amounting to Rs.3,05,66,25,039/-. 2.7 The Ld.AO was of the opinion that nexus has not been established between the advancing of funds in the business interest of the assessee. The Ld.AO disallowed the interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the act at Rs.5,32,41,623/- for lack of commercial expediency. 2.8 The Ld.AO during

THE CHITRADURGA CITY MULTI PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY,CHITRADURGA vs. CIT, DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

property and rights of the company, also should be treated as a banking business. No doubt, it is true, as contended by Sri Sesachala that the businesses referred to in clauses (a) to (o) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Regulation Act cannot be treated as a banking business within the meaning of clause (b) of section

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:-

house property and not under the head income from business because had it been the case of the AO or CIT (A), Annual Value would have been brought to tax and deduction would have been allowed of interest u/s 24 and only depreciation would have been disallowed. 11. Now we decide the issue about allowability of interest

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

6 ITA No.982/Bang/2019. M/s.Embassy Knowledge Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd. 11. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has filed an elaborate written submission that lease rental income received by the assessee is to be assessed as “income from business” instead of “income from house property”. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows

M/S. INDRAPRASTHA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year :2011-12 M/S. Indraprastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Prestige Corniche, Circle –11(4), No.62/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aabci 2643 B Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2020 O R D E R

6 of 8 also deductible in computing under the head income from house property. The said Circular is reproduced below: “Fresh loan raised to repay original loan taken for constructing/ buying property - Whether interest payable on second loan would also be admissible as a deduction under clause (vi) of sub-section

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:

section 24(a) of the Act. However, the CIT(Appeals) has considered Rs.57,52,392 as income from sub-letting which is not correct. The assessee has taken the net sub-letting rental income at Rs.13,24,488 to the Profit & Loss account and it is included in the income from house property as follows:- Page 5 of 6

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

6. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee argued that the provisions of section 50C are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. The assessee submitted that possession by transfer having been completed in 1989, the provisions of section 50C will not be applicable. According to the assessee, the provisions of section 50C of the Act comes with reference to the capital gains

SHRI.T.A.V.GUPTA ,TURUVEKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazshri. T.A.V. Gupta, Birla Corner, B.T. Road, Turuvekere – 572227, Pan: Albpg6202G. . Appellant

6 residential flats is a clear violation of the conditions stipulated in section 54F and it was as good as investment in more than one residential house and the income from such house is chargeable under income from house property

S.M. VINOD (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SRI. S M MUNIYAPPA),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, it seems to us that the income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. A person may construct a house according to his plans, requirements and compulsions. A person may construct a residential house in such a manner that he may use the ground floor