M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

8 of 12 the income to be treated as income from house property then the assessee is entitled to deduction under chapter (income from house property) then the deduction forming part of chapter IV computation of total income from house property u/s. 24(2), 25, 25A, 25Aa, 27 etc. are available and if we hold that the income from

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

property for the purposes of his own residence, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,......." Under this section, if the assessee has within a period

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 23(1)(a) of the Act, the notional value of Rs.28,07,780/- (8.5% of Rs.3,30,32,716/-) is adopted as annual value for the purpose of computing deemed income from house property and accordingly computed the income as below: ALV as discussed above 28,07,780/- Less 30% for Repairs & Maintenance 8

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

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

8. The second issue concerns itself with the allowability of interest paid on housing loan amounting to Rs.18,38,292/- towards cost of apartment. The AO observed that the assessee has already claimed deduction under section 24(b) of Rs. 4,53,628/- as interest on housing loan while computing his income from the house property

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

8 Therefore, in the case of more than one properties are purchased by the assessee, the option is available with the assessee to claim benefit under Section 54 in respect of the residential house

SHAMBALA PROPERTIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLR-12(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Shambala Properties Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.7, Rest House Road, Circle – 12(3) Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. (Presently – Dcit – 7(1)(2)), Pan No : Aahcs 1313 C Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Elamurusu G, Jcit (Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020

8. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not reducing the Service tax of Rs. 17,33,877/- from the total rent received. 9. That the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rents received were for lease of property and host of other services and was not rent simpliciter. 10.That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

8 ITA No.203/Bang/2022. Sri.Yash Vardhan Arya. that meaning and interpretation of the words 'property is let' cannot be 'property actually let out'. Thus, if a property is held with an intention to let out in the relevant year coupled with efforts made for letting it out, it could be said that such a property is a let out property

M/S. INDRAPRASTHA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year :2011-12 M/S. Indraprastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Prestige Corniche, Circle –11(4), No.62/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aabci 2643 B Assessee By : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2020 O R D E R

8 also deductible in computing under the head income from house property. The said Circular is reproduced below: “Fresh loan raised to repay original loan taken for constructing/ buying property - Whether interest payable on second loan would also be admissible as a deduction under clause (vi) of sub-section

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

8. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the annual letting value of the house property at Airport Road is nil u/s 23(1)(c) of the Act. 9. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the value of Jayanagar property is unexplained even

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

property. If a floor is constructed to the new house or if it is renovated it remains a house and this will not be two houses. There is no evidence that two different houses were constructed with two different municipal numbers, that is to say, giving two different municipal numbers in respect of two houses. If the interpretation sought

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15 M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, #41, Mantri House, Dcit Circle – 4 (1) (2), Vittal Malya Road, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560001 Pan : Aaacg4009N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – 4 Bengaluru Dated 30.11.2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

8. In that case, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court followed a judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 25 ITR 265 and reproduced a relevant para of that judgment of Page 9 of 15 Hon’ble apex court and for ready reference, we also reproduce that para

M/S ABHILASH SOFTWARE & DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2005-06

Section 10. Therefore, in substance it was held the income falls under the heading of income from other sources and not income from business. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not go into Page 6 of 8 the question whether income from the furniture and fixtures would fall under the income from 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

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. (iii) Deduction on section 80G of Rs.5 lakh

M/S K.BABU (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. K. Babu (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2, Dollars Colony, Ward – 7(2)(3), 1St Cross, 2Nd Main, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan: Aaggk 0809 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

house property", other than the new asset.' 14. The aforesaid provision was examined by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 221 (Karn). In the context of section 54F which is in para materia under section 54F of the Act, the Hon’ble High Court held as follows: “8

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

8 of 19 gains Account Scheme before the due date for funishing the return of income. 9. The A.O. pointed out to the assessee that exemption u/s 54 of the Act would be available only if the property that was transferred was a residential house and since as per the schedule of property as found in the sale deed

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

8 ITA Nos.845 & 850(B)15 consideration is whether the income received from letting out of Malls is assessable under the head “Income from business or profession” or under the head “ Income from house property”. A similar issue had come up for consideration before the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year

PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

8 ITA Nos.845 & 850(B)15 consideration is whether the income received from letting out of Malls is assessable under the head “Income from business or profession” or under the head “ Income from house property”. A similar issue had come up for consideration before the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year