M/S. G CROP PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

section 24 of the Act. The annual value of the property is the actual rent receivable by the assessee and hence the Mall owner should have offered 100% of the license fees/rent receipts as annual value instead of 98%. Similarly, other income received through Mall activities shall also form part of Annual letting value and the same should have been

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

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

83,672, though assessee has not deposited that portion in the net sale consideration into the account scheme notified by the Central Govt. For this purpose, it is appropriate to go through the provisions of section 54(2) of the Act which are as follows:- “54. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case

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

house property other than the new asset as on the date of transfer. 14. With regard to the order of PCIT directing the AO to examine the question whether the gain on sale of the plots by the assessee should be regarded as LTCG or income from business, we have already seen that the assessee’s case was taken

M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property”. Whereas, the rental income from equipment was considered as “income from other sources” by the assessee. The A.O., however, reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” and disallowed standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act for the following two reasons, namely, (i) the assessee is not the owner of the property

M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property”. Whereas, the rental income from equipment was considered as “income from other sources” by the assessee. The A.O., however, reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” and disallowed standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act for the following two reasons, namely, (i) the assessee is not the owner of the property

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property”. Whereas, the rental income from equipment was considered as “income from other sources” by the assessee. The A.O., however, reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” and disallowed standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act for the following two reasons, namely, (i) the assessee is not the owner of the property

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property”. Whereas, the rental income from equipment was considered as “income from other sources” by the assessee. The A.O., however, reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” and disallowed standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act for the following two reasons, namely, (i) the assessee is not the owner of the property

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house property”. Whereas, the rental income from equipment was considered as “income from other sources” by the assessee. The A.O., however, reclassified the rental income from property as “income from other sources” and disallowed standard deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the I.T.Act for the following two reasons, namely, (i) the assessee is not the owner of the property

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

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

section 54F. A reading of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court would show that there is no particular stage of completion of construction that is contemplated. It is not in dispute that the later the construction was & CO 86/Bang/2015 Page 13 of 24 completed and has occupied the residential house. In such circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUJEEB URRAHMAN, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

83,672, though assessee has not deposited that portion in the net sale consideration into the account scheme notified by the Central Govt. For this purpose, it is appropriate to go through the provisions of section 54(2) of the Act which are as follows:- “54. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case

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

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

83,323 expenses Depreciation 5 68,12,869 Sub total 175,02,45,026 Excess of income over 24,59,67,953 expenditure Less : Income related to prior 2,69,54,699 period (Net) Excess of Income over 27,29,22,652 Expenditure 6. The Ld.AO observed that assessee has earned profit over total turnover and after claiming expenses

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD vs. ADDL.DIT,

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

83,323 expenses Depreciation 5 68,12,869 Sub total 175,02,45,026 Excess of income over 24,59,67,953 expenditure Less : Income related to prior 2,69,54,699 period (Net) Excess of Income over 27,29,22,652 Expenditure 6. The Ld.AO observed that assessee has earned profit over total turnover and after claiming expenses

M/S PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.806/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Prestige Garden Constructions P. Ltd, The Falcon House No.1, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Appellant Pan : Aabcp2901E V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padamchand Khindha, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, Cit Heard On : 25.05.2016 Pronounced On : 10.06.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

house property.' 1.2 The learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Bangalore 5, Bangalore has erred in not appreciating that in the instant case letting out of the property (a) along with provision of other services, amenities and facilities constituted the business carried on by the assessee; there was a commercial exploitation of the property (b) in distinction to mere letting