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

63,73,596. Accordingly, the assessee claimed the deduction under Section 54 of the Act in respect of both the apartments purchased by the assessee and against the entire capital gain arising from sale of house property

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

63,056 was added back to income from house property even though it cannot be added as per the provisions of the Act. 7. The assessee also raised following additional grounds:- (i) The interest cost is Rs.7.03 crore and not Rs.4.34 crore as raised in original grounds of appeal. (ii) Depreciation on the asset leased has to be allowed

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 54 and 54F of the Act. 4) That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the residential property in Jayanagar has to be considered as one residential house since it is a duplex house containing single Khatha number, single Property Identification (PID) number. Each of the above grounds is independent of one another

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

63. Besides the Leave and License Agreement, the assessee has also filed the agreement for Hire of Amenities which is also available on record at page Nos. 65 to 71 of the compilation. 8. From careful perusal of the Leave and License Agreement, we find that the property was let out to the lessee and certain amenities as mentioned

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

63. Besides the Leave and License Agreement, the assessee has also filed the agreement for Hire of Amenities which is also available on record at page Nos. 65 to 71 of the compilation. 8. From careful perusal of the Leave and License Agreement, we find that the property was let out to the lessee and certain amenities as mentioned

SHIVAKUMAR KHENY (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 63 of the Transfer of Property Act, it was held categorically, "There is no substance in this contention. This maxim -- whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil is a rule of considerable antiquity and has been held to be inapplicable in this Country." Page 8 of 14 .................... In India the view has been uniformly taken that

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

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

63,23,064/-. He also claimed that he has utilised 1,36,00,000/- for house\nconstruction. On the ground that the assessee has not furnished how much amount\nwas in fact utilized for construction after the date of sale, the claim of the assessee\nfor claiming exemption was not accepted. The assessee claimed to have utilized

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

63,372 Pre-construction period loan Rs. 6,18,205/- 3rd yr 1,23,641 ------------- 3,95,013 ----------------- Loss from this source (-) 35,013 ------------------ Accordingly the Assessing Officer has assessed the loss from house property at Rs. 35,013/- as against the loss claimed by the Assessee of Rs.2,19,813/-. Thus there was disallowance of loss of Rs.1

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

63,372 Pre-construction period loan Rs. 6,18,205/- 3rd yr 1,23,641 ------------- 3,95,013 ----------------- Loss from this source (-) 35,013 ------------------ Accordingly the Assessing Officer has assessed the loss from house property at Rs. 35,013/- as against the loss claimed by the Assessee of Rs.2,19,813/-. Thus there was disallowance of loss of Rs.1

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

property. 2. The assessee sold a plot at HSR Layout, Bangalore bearing No.1156 on 81h September 2014 for Rs.2,00,00,000/- and consequently a Capital Gain of Rs.1.86,63,291/- is declared in the Income Tax Return. 3. In order to claim exemption from capital gain the assessee decided to buy a site and construct a house under

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

section 194I is not talking about only renting of the property but also renting of machinery, plant or equipment. Further, with respect to the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- received as sub letting charges at a trade exhibition is already shown by the Assessee by netting off the expenditure. Therefore, there is a double addition of all the above

M/S. C R NAGAPPA AND SONS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

Accordingly these Grounds raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

house property”. In the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the said deduction was rejected. 2.1 The assessee filed an application under section 154 electronically for rectification. In the rectification application assessee withdrew the deduction claimed under section 24(b) of the Act, but claimed exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Act, amounting

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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

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

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

63, 872/-. b) Construction agreement for construction of residential house for a consideration of Rs.45, 14,712. Against the above agreements, during the Financial Year 2008-09, following payments were made by the assessee. Rs . 08.06.2008 : 56,70,000 03.11.2008 : 16,97,333 12.11 .2008 : 12,00,000 -------------- 85,67,333 -------------- Proportionate deduction of Rs. 49,27,996/- was claimed

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

house property" as claimed by the Appellant! Assessee and deciding the issue raised by Appellant in favour of revenue, without appreciating the true facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Without prejudice to Ground of Appeal 1, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, if at all, rental income earned from building amounting

M/S CONSULATE CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2003-04 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

63,744 and Rs.1,25,806 from lease rentals of office space and fit outs respectively under the head ‘Income from Business’. For both these assessment years, the returns of income filed by the assessee were processed but not taken up for scrutiny. Subsequently, for both these assessment years, proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein