SRI. G.S. SHIVANNA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-4, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

73 of the assessee’s paper book. From a perusal of the same, it is clear that the Assessee owned Property-1, 28, Kanakapura-Yelanchenahalli Main Road from which it declared income from House property. The PCIT in his SCN u/s.263 of the Act, has mentioned that from the documents available on record, the assessee owned a second house property

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

Section 54 of the Act 77,14,409/- 17, The Learned CIT(A) erred in failing to direct the Assessing Officer to give credit for the sum of Rs.77,14,409/- out of the sum of Rs.79,73,867/- being the Prepaid Taxes for A.Y.2015-16 when the AO has brought to tax the Long-Term Capital A.Y.2014-15 which is Gains

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

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

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernable from the order and hence deserves

NAGARAJ DESIRAZU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

73,157 Less: Exemptions Invested Date Amount Exemption 54 F Transfer of property other than house property 85,66,165 85,60,904 54 EC. Investment in bonds 50,00,000 50,00,000 Taxable Capital gain 57,12,253 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid computation of capital gain by both the assessees, they had claimed deduction

DESIRAZU SUNDARA SIVA RAO,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

73,157 Less: Exemptions Invested Date Amount Exemption 54 F Transfer of property other than house property 85,66,165 85,60,904 54 EC. Investment in bonds 50,00,000 50,00,000 Taxable Capital gain 57,12,253 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid computation of capital gain by both the assessees, they had claimed deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Section u/s.153C u/s.139 per 143(3) 143(1) 143(3) (In Income/ (In Rs.) (In Rs.) r.w.s 153C Deductions Rs.) Iln Rs.) 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/ Income 39,99,76,522/ from Business Income from 9,43,00,296/- 9,43,00,296/- 73,63,76,690 399976522 94300296 house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Section u/s.153C u/s.139 per 143(3) 143(1) 143(3) (In Income/ (In Rs.) (In Rs.) r.w.s 153C Deductions Rs.) Iln Rs.) 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/ Income 39,99,76,522/ from Business Income from 9,43,00,296/- 9,43,00,296/- 73,63,76,690 399976522 94300296 house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Section u/s.153C u/s.139 per 143(3) 143(1) 143(3) (In Income/ (In Rs.) (In Rs.) r.w.s 153C Deductions Rs.) Iln Rs.) 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/ Income 39,99,76,522/ from Business Income from 9,43,00,296/- 9,43,00,296/- 73,63,76,690 399976522 94300296 house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

Section u/s.153C u/s.139 per 143(3) 143(1) 143(3) (In Income/ (In Rs.) (In Rs.) r.w.s 153C Deductions Rs.) Iln Rs.) 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/- 39,99,76,522/ Income 39,99,76,522/ from Business Income from 9,43,00,296/- 9,43,00,296/- 73,63,76,690 399976522 94300296 house property

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

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

section 147, of the LT Act, on 08.03.20 13 in the case of HUF for the assessment year 2009-10 on the basis of submission furnished by G.Anitha (Individual) during the re-opened assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005-06 on 17.0 1.2013 stating that the property in question is HUF property of N.G.Balu Reddy". 2. On the facts

G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

section\n24 of the Act.\nTax effect\nrelating to each\nGround of\nAppeal\n(Rs.)\nRs. 4,98,547/-\nRs. 84,96,160/-\nRs.1,61,266/-\nPage 3 of 11\nITA No. 849/Bang/2025\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of\nreal estate development, real estate project management, construction of\nretail

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

property. It was contended by the assessee that the transfer\ntook place only in AY 2013-14, subsequent to executing the POA\ndated 17 August 2012. However, the Assessing Officer held that\ncapital gains were liable to be taxed in AY 2012-13 since there was\na transfer under Section 2(47)(v) as on the date of executing

SHRI. P. KRISHNA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

73,160 towards investment made in house property. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer (AO) ACIT, Circle 3(3)(1) vide order dated 31.10.2017 wherein the A.O. has disallowed the entire deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act. 2 Sri P.Krishna Reddy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144 of the Act after considering the documents/material available before him and computed the gross total income at Rs.3,73,98,834/- as under: - Income from House property