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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 44AD of the Act. However, the AO observed that the agreement with the SBI is a composite agreement. The assessee is not into the business of renting out properties and as such, the income from maintenance charges received has direct nexus with the property and derived from the property only and hence the amount received as per the lease

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

section 54 of the Act. Deduction u/s 54F of the Act is available on sale of any capital asset other than residential house. The assessee’s request for allowing claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act was denied by the A.O. for the reason that the assessee owned more than one residential house other than the new asset

SRI. GANGA POORNA PRASAD,MYSURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Sri Ganga Poorna Prasad, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #718, Ii Main, 1St Cross, 1St Block, Income Tax, Ramakrishnagar, Circle-2(1), Mysuru – 570 026. Mysuru. Pan : Aiqpp 5131 K Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru

section 148 of the Act, return of income was filed declaring Total Income of Rs. 1,17,59,366.00. The Total income comprised of Income from House Property, Business income and Income for Other Sources offered for taxation in the return of income originally filed earlier and Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 1,15,74

SHRI.RAMAKRISHNA ASHWATH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ramakrishna Aswatgh, No. 40, 1St Floor, 1St Main, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, 3Rd Stage, Bhel Officer, Layout, Vs. Ward – 6 (3) (3), Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 080. Pan: Adrpa6087D Appellant Respondent

74 of the paper book. This para reads as under. “6. It may be mentioned in this connection that Section 154 deals with the rectification of a mistake and in order to be applicable the section enjoins that "with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record". Therefore, Section 154, on its own force, to be applicable

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 at Delhi on 07/09/2015 for a total 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 Rs.33,35,209/-. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the long term capital gain as computed by the assessee amounting to Rs.36

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

section 14A of the Act. The assessee explained before the AO that the investments which are likely to earn tax free income were made by the assessee out of his own funds and therefore there was no interest expenditure which can be attributed to earning of exempt income. The assessee took a stand that the assessee had sufficient capital

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

section 14A of the Act. The assessee explained before the AO that the investments which are likely to earn tax free income were made by the assessee out of his own funds and therefore there was no interest expenditure which can be attributed to earning of exempt income. The assessee took a stand that the assessee had sufficient capital

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

House Property', erred in disallowing the interest on capital borrowed and used for acquiring the said building complex. 2.7. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer having allowed interest in respect of Rs. 45 Crores which was utilised towards re-payment of old loan, have erred in disallowing interest in respect of balance Rs. 19.50 Crores which was utilised

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

House Property', erred in disallowing the interest on capital borrowed and used for acquiring the said building complex. 2.7. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer having allowed interest in respect of Rs. 45 Crores which was utilised towards re-payment of old loan, have erred in disallowing interest in respect of balance Rs. 19.50 Crores which was utilised

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

House Property', erred in disallowing the interest on capital borrowed and used for acquiring the said building complex. 2.7. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer having allowed interest in respect of Rs. 45 Crores which was utilised towards re-payment of old loan, have erred in disallowing interest in respect of balance Rs. 19.50 Crores which was utilised

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

AMANDA JOY PURAVANKARA ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

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 & 7 raised by the assessee are allowed.” Amanda Joy Puravankara, Bengaluru Page 6 of 7 In the present case, the facts involved are similar to that of Smt. Indu Chandra

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

74,20,000/- in purchase of a residential building in Newton MA, USA. The assessee claimed the above deduction before the AO. The AO rejected the same on the reason that it was mentioned only as “a residential house” and not as “a residential house in India”. The assessee was free to make the investment anywhere in the World. According

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