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

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property in Delhi on 07/09/2015 for a consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- which was originally purchased on 04/06/2007 for a consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-, the index cost of acquisition being worked out to Rs.33,35,209/-. The AO observed that the assessee had also claimed deduction u/s. 54 of the Act amounting to Rs.36,64

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

64,16,154/- being cost of acquisition of residential property on Site No. 839/21, 37th F Cross, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011 on 10.2.2011 for an amount of Rs. 1,52,02,905/- and construction of residential house on the same property value of Rs. 3,12,13,249/-. 2.1 The Ld.AO observed that assessee also constructed

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

64-66, 88-97, The Deputy Commissioner Narasapura KIADB Industrial of Income Tax, Area, Achhatanahalli Village, Circle – 6(1)(1), Vs. Narasapur Hobli Bangalore Kolar – 563133, Karnataka PAN: AAPCS33783A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate : Shri Aseem Sharma, CIT-DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 13-10-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16-12-2025 ORDER PER PRASHANT

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

64,93,506/- 9 The Learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's claim for adoption of FMV of Rs.1,70,00,00/- per acre as on the date on which the Lands at Poojanahalli was permitted to be put to non-agricultural Residential purposes for deduction u/s Long- 48(ii) of the Act in assessing the Term Capital

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

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

house property and income from other sources. This return was revised on 05.08.2013 at total income of Rs.39,70,830/-. 3. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act (The Act) on 20.03.2025, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.8,83,93,880/-. 4. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee preferred an appeal

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

64 which reads as follows:- Sri K. Satish Kumar, Bangalore Page 23 of 47 Sri K. Satish Kumar, Bangalore Page 24 of 47 5.5 The A.O. was not ready to accept these documents. He referred the matter to DVO and the AO obtained the report from him on 27.2.2009 after lapse of 2 years of incurring this expenditure

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

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. 9. Accordingly, a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19. In response to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income for respective assessment years and for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 declaring an income

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house property. 9. Accordingly, a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19. In response to the notice issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income for respective assessment years and for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 declaring an income

M/S. ANUPAM RANJAN (HUF),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 54/54F ought to have been given to the appellant. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Rs.18,16,540/- learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the capital gain as offered by the Appellant and ought to have deleted the impugned additions. 6. Without prejudice, the impugned additions Rs.18,16,540/- confirmed

JAYARAM REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

64. The AO during the assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee had shown rental receipts of ₹9,00,000/- from M/s Devyani International Ltd. However, as per Form 26AS, the actual rent receipts stood at ₹9,90,000.00 only. The AO, therefore, was of the view that there was under-reporting of income by ₹90,000 under the head "House

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], has to be complied as they cannot be overlooked. In future the Government may consider amending the Act and extending the timelines as laid down in Section 54F from the date of approval of Sanction Plan by the Govt. Agencies. Based on the above discussion of facts and circumstances, the ld CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the decision taken

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

64,000/- towards the sale consideration for transfer of his\nagricultural land. In the instant case, the sale of property and\nconsequent receipt of sale consideration in cash are not disputed by\nthe either side. The assessee had only sold an ancestral property on\na honest and Bonafide belief that same are not covered under the\nPage

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

housing cooperative societies have been cancelled, as the assessee also furnished a copy of the arbitration award dated 25/1/2013, wherein the assessee and M/s VBHCS are parties. As per the award, agreement to develop layouts was canceled. According to the AO, the assessee had already transferred 118 acres of land to M/s VBHCS during the financial year