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

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

71,614/- The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the 13. estimate of the Consideration due under the Joint Development Agreement other than the Non-Refundable Deposit by adopting the Consolidated Rate of Rs.8,550/- per Sq. Ft. of built-up area with complete disregard to the facts of the case and to the Notification dated 3.7.2013 bearing No.CVC

PADMANABAN SUKHUMARAN ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee towards the interest claimed u/s

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

71,390/- for the impugned assessment year 2017- 18, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Grounds on disallowance of claim of interest u/s 24(b), Rs.17,44,496/-: a. The authorities below have failed to take cognizance of the fact that the appellant has inadvertently mentioned the address of J.P Nagar property which is a self-occupied

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-10(2), BANGALORE vs. SMT. Y MANJULA REDDY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

house property. Hence, it cannot be said that the third proviso to section 54F of the Act is violated. 15. With regard to the cost of acquisition of the building, the Ld. CIT(A) took the view that (a) the expenditure incurred on interiors, renovation, furnishing, etc. after registration of plot i.e. after 24.2.2007 cannot be taken as part

Y. MANJULA REDDY vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09

house property. Hence, it cannot be said that the third proviso to section 54F of the Act is violated. 15. With regard to the cost of acquisition of the building, the Ld. CIT(A) took the view that (a) the expenditure incurred on interiors, renovation, furnishing, etc. after registration of plot i.e. after 24.2.2007 cannot be taken as part

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

house, being three years from the date of transfer of the original land and the period during which the bank account remain attached has to be excluded as no fault lies with the assessee. In the interim, the assessment order was passed by the Assessing officer on 5.12.2011. In such a situation, firstly, when the bank account of the assessee

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

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

BALUSA VENKATA MURALIKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFCIER, INTL TAXN, WARD1(2), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

71,990/-. The ld. AO sought for the details about the sale consideration received by him and proposed to levy long term capital gain tax by disallowing the claim of exemption made by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. The ld. AO had not considered the return of income as valid since the same was not filed in time

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

Section\n45(A) in relation to Occupation Certificate/CC is not applicable and\nhence the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are liable to be reversed.\n6. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of the Tribunal Bangalore\nBench in the case of Dheeraj Amin Vs. ACIT 71 taxmann.com 288\nwherein held as follows:\n\"What the assessee has got today

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. BAGALUR KRISHNAIAH SETTY VIJAY SHANKER, BENGALURU

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

Section 2(e)(a) in the\nAct was to stimulate productive assets. However, the event when such a\nprovision is to be attracted is also mentioned in Explanation 1(b) itself carving\nout those situations when the land is not to be treated urban land. The\nLegislature in its wisdom conferred the benefit of exemption in respect of\nurban vacant

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

House Property." After giving the benefit of deduction under section 24 of the Act, the AO added a sum of ₹63,000 to the total income of the assessee. 65. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing that the assessee failed to bring any material on record in support of the contention that

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

PRADIP KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(7), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

house property sold for ₹61,00,000/-on 07.07.2010, Reliance is placed on CIT v. Kulwant Rai [291 ITR 36 (Delhi)). Page 2 of 5 2. The authorities below failed to appreciate that ₹ 29,15,000/- was deposited in the bank on the very date of execution of the sale deed (07.07.2010), clearly establishing a nexus between the sale consideration