ACIT, MANGALORE vs. SRI. J. KRISHNA PALEMAR, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

80,11,023/- was offered for tax as long term capital gain in the return of income filed. 6.1 During assessment proceedings the AO observed that, appellant has following house properties apart from what he has claimed exemption u/s.54F and his dwelling unit 'Palemar', situated at Kodialguthu East, Bejai Church Road, Mangalore - 575 003. Page 10 of 17 1. Property

M/S STERLING DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan

housing projects on certain conditions being fulfilled. The provisions of section 80 IB (13) of the Act, that makes the provisions of section 80 IA(5) applicable to section 80 IB also, applies only ‘so far as may be’. Thus, by virtue of the fact that there is no concept of initial assessment year under section 80IB

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

80,788\n3.\nThe CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of annual letting\nvalue of Rs.3,76,327 with respect to the Purvankara flat.\n1,33,728\n4.\nThe CIT(A) erred in holding that the maintenance charges of\nRs.59,23,126 received from the tenant State Bank of India was\nassessable under the head income from house property

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

house property', the appellant did not claim depreciation allowance under section 32 in respect of the buildings Let out on rent. The said depreciation was also not claimed Page 7 of 12 in computing the income/Loss under the head 'Profits and gains of business'. Assuming without admitting that the entire rental income is assessable under the head 'Profits and gains

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

housing projects or a ship in Nava Sheva. Ownership of a ship per se will not attract Section 80-/B (6). It is the profits arising from the business of a ship which attracts sub-section (6). In other words, deduction under sub-section (6) at the specified rate has linkage to the profits derived from the shipping operations. This

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

housing projects or a ship in Nava Sheva. Ownership of a ship per se will not attract Section 80-/B (6). It is the profits arising from the business of a ship which attracts sub-section (6). In other words, deduction under sub-section (6) at the specified rate has linkage to the profits derived from the shipping operations. This

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BAGALKOT vs. SHRI BAPOOJI PATTIN SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT , BAGALKOT

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14

house property chargeable under section 22. IT(TP)A No.309/Bang/2014 Page 6 of 12 Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

housing projects or a\nship in Nava Sheva. Ownership of a ship per se will not attract Section 80-/B (6). It\nis the profits arising from the business of a ship which attracts sub-section (6). In\nother words, deduction under sub-section (6) at the specified rate has linkage to the\nprofits derived from the shipping operations. This

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

house property. Therefore, firstly what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are the facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly, it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry

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

house property. Therefore, firstly what is the intention behind the lease and secondly what are the facilities given along with the buildings and documents executed in respect of each of them is to be seen. Thirdly, it is to be found out whether it is inseparable or not. If they are inseparable and the intention is to carry

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

section 54F of the Act on all the 10 flats received under the JDA then the question regarding year of taxability of LTCG would become academic because there would remain no taxable long term capital gain. Learned DR placed reliance on the decision of the AO and CIT(A). 14. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that

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

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

80 Feet Road, Poojari Bengaluru. Layout, R. M. V. 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560094. PAN : AAIFM8040N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT Date of hearing : 23.2.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 31.3.2017 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

section 54 was allowed where the new residential property was purchased in the name of the wife of the assessee. (b) DIT, International Taxation v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide [2011] 15 taxmann.com 82/203 Taxman 208/[2012] 349 ITR 80 (Kar.) – The Tribunal has allowed exemption u/s 54 for investment in residential property by the assessee jointly with her husband

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

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

80,000/- on behalf of PURCHASER, which amount was originally paid by the PURCHASER to Sri. B. SURESH, the Consenting Witness; and” 12. The section 54 of the I.T.Act mandates that the assessee must invest in a new asset to be eligible for the claim of deduction under section 54 of the I.T.Act, i.e. within the periods specified

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

house property. It will not make any difference whether\nthe money was kept in capital account scheme or in savings bank account.\nOnly difference is nomenclature. Assessee incurred construction expenditure\nof Rs.41 lakhs used by engaging labour contractors and for all the materials\npurchases like steel, wood and other items and he has issued cheque payment\nto the parties. Plot

SMT. NETHRAVATHI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Nethravathi, No.2, 8Th Cross, 1St Main, Sampangiram Nagar, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aafpn6032J. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Warad – 2(3)(3), Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri P Dinesh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : -04-2018 O R D E R

section 54F of the Act and hence cannot be ITA No.2630/B/17 8 eligible for deduction u/s 54F. Therefore, he uphold the addition of Rs.1,41,08,787/- made by the AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld counsel for assessee apart from relying

SRI SURESH.C,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2006-07

Section 54 of the income Tax Act. Hence, we do not see any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee also pointed out that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has been followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case