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

section 23(1)(a) of the I.T.Act invoked by the CIT(A). Since the lease rental received for the relevant assessment year being `Nil’, the same has to be adopted instead of ALV as ordered by the CIT(A). Further, the lease rental received by the assessee from 01.06.2016 was disclosed under the head “income from house property

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:-

89 of Paper Book]. Hence, no notional rent or real rent arises in the appellant's case for the year under appeal based on the lease deed dated 31/01/2013 from 1St August 2013. It may also be mentioned here that subsequently, the 4. appellant has entered into a lease agreement with M/s.Vodofone India Services Pvt. Ltd., dated 12/02/2015 [See pages

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

house property in respect of 2 properties out of which one is the property at Vishnuvardhan Road, Mysuru. If the property at Vishnuvardhan Road, Mysuru, is regarded as the property belonging to HUF, then the assessee would not be hit by the condition laid down in the proviso to section 54F(1) of the Act. The AO thereafter proceeded

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

Section 54F is available only for purchase or construction of a new property, the assessee MrAshwath Ramakrishna constructed the additional floors on newly purchased residential units. Based on these and such other grounds that may be adduced from time to time, the appellant requests the Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the petition in the light of principles

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

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, it seems to us that the income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. A person may construct a house according to his plans, requirements and compulsions. A person may construct a residential house in such a manner that he may use the ground floor

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

house property because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income. Accordingly, ground no. 19 of the Assessee is allowed. 18. The Ground no. 20 of the Appeal is with respect to the correct carry forward of losses. The Assessee has computed the carry forward of the losses

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

89,754/-. The property was sold on 25.01.2018 for claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act in the Financial Year 2017-18, the amount should have been kept in the capital gain account claimed by the assessee by the due date of filing of ITR. In the present case, the assessee has not deposited the proceeds from transfer

M/S.BINDU AGRO PRODUCTS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

house property after claiming standard deduction under Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and deduction on account of interest under Section 24(b) of the Act. The remaining expenses claimed in the profit and loss account were treated as income under the head profit from business and profession at loss of Rs.33,89

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

house of the lender. property". 4 Deduction under Evidence of investment or Chapter VI-A. expenditure It was submitted by the Ld.Counsel that even after insertion of clause (2D) to section 192, in the absence of specific requirement under Rule 26C to collect evidence in respect of Medical expenses, the employer is not obliged to collect evidence/proof from the employee