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

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.” In the present case, the facts involved are similar to that of Smt. Indu Chandra (supra). So, respectfully following the order

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

section 27(iiib) of the Act. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, where the income may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be treated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business of the assessee. What is the test which has to be applied to determine whether

M/S. DEEPALI COMPANY PRIVAE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax (Earlier Known As :Deepali Co. Officer, Pvt. Ltd.) Ward – 2 (1)(2), 35, Commercial Street, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Pan: Aaacd5120H Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 03.0.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2016-17 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Not Allowing Business Loss For The Year Of Rs. 114,66.766/- On The Ground That The Business Of The Assessee Company Is Closed & There Are No Receipts From Operation Of Business.

90,00/- from rental income and Rs.1,36,199/- from other sources. The Ld.AO disputed the rental income declared by the assessee, as it was shown under the head, “Income from business”. The Ld.AO assessed the rental income under the head, ”Income from house property”, after allowing deduction u/s. 24 of the Act. The Ld.AO Page

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

section 54 F was claimed was acquired on 10/02/2011, i.e., 4 years prior to the transfer of original asset and that the assessee constructed the residential house on the same property which is valued at Rs.3,12,13,249/-, the Capital gain was restricted to Rs.14,90

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

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

ANJU AGAST SRIVATS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (NFAC), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Ms. Anju Agast Srivats Vs The Income Tax Officer No. 303. Sobha Orchid Nfac, Delhi Jakkur, Bengaluru 560064 Pan – Afsps6930E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain J. Ca Revenue By: Shri Sankarganesh K., Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi’S Order Dated 23.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Wherein He Had Denied The Foreign Tax Credit (Ftc).

House Property’ and ‘other sources’. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny regarding “foreign financial interest”. During the 2 Ms. Anju Agast Srivats course of scrutiny assessment it was noticed that foreign dividend income of USD 2720 received by the assessee was not declared in the return of income nor she had filed revised return. The assessee claimed that

SHRI RAJEEV NATARAJ LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI P NATARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

property instead of extending the benefit of exemption under section 54 of the Act on investment in multiple residential houses on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] ought to have appreciated that consent cannot confer jurisdiction and ought to have granted relief under section 54 of the Act on investment

SHRI PRABHUKUMAR AIYAPPA KULLATIRA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

house property of Rs.7,27,538/-, income from capital gains of Rs.1,90,035/-, income from other sources Rs.27,16,605/- and declared taxable income of Rs.32,64,140/-. The AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2017 and made addition of Rs.2,48,23,210/- as long term capital gains, which is the subject

PUSHPALATHA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 274 of the Act r.w.s. 271D\nof the Act on 11.01.2022. In response, assessee submitted as follows:\n“I pushpalatha, I have sold my house property during the FY 2016-17 for\nRs. 90

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

house property Long-term 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561/ with - indexation ITA Nos.494 to 497/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 9 Income from - - 9,37,052 - 937052/- other Sources Gross 89,93,76,719/- 89,93,76,719/- 90

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

house property Long-term 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561/ with - indexation ITA Nos.494 to 497/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 9 Income from - - 9,37,052 - 937052/- other Sources Gross 89,93,76,719/- 89,93,76,719/- 90

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

house property Long-term 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561/ with - indexation ITA Nos.494 to 497/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 9 Income from - - 9,37,052 - 937052/- other Sources Gross 89,93,76,719/- 89,93,76,719/- 90

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

house property Long-term 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561 19,74,56,561/- 19,74,56,561/ with - indexation ITA Nos.494 to 497/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 9 Income from - - 9,37,052 - 937052/- other Sources Gross 89,93,76,719/- 89,93,76,719/- 90

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order

SRI. VINOD RADHAKRISHNA ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143[3] r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 20/06/2019 and consequently in the absence of proper satisfaction recorded for the initiation of penalty proceedings the entire penalty proceedings is bad in law and void-ab-into under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] erred in passipg the impugned appellate order