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 or as income from business. 12. Next issue to be decided is regarding set off of the losses

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

House Property". Page 5 of 31 6. The third issue to be adjudicated is with regard to set off of capital loss

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

Loss and Income from House Property and accordingly paid the tax of Rs. 10,82,501. In the return, the assessee had disclosed the rental income earned from letting out the property under Income from House Property, although the nature of activity carried out was akin to Business and such income was partially set

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

set it off against rental expenditure of Rs. 1,81,1 1,130/- resulting in loss under the head House Property

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

set aside and the appeal allowed in the interests of justice. TOTAL TAX EFFECT 14,80,788 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 12.8.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,45,80,090/-. The said return of income was duly processed

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

set off the loss assessed under the head “Income from house property” of Rs.4,55,96,946 for A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.3

M/S. AMIN MANILAL & CO., PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

property. (f) Holding and stating that business loss claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 6,24,042/- was liable to be disallowed and to be added to the income of the appellant. (g) Not allowing set off of business loss of Rs. 6,24,042/- against income from house

M/S.MONARCH COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

property. (f) Holding and stating that business loss claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 6,24,042/- was liable to be disallowed and to be added to the income of the appellant. (g) Not allowing set off of business loss of Rs. 6,24,042/- against income from house

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House property Rs. 4,19,043/- B. Business Income Rs. 4,50,000/- C. Short term capital gain taxable at normal rate Rs. 58,95,682/- (Rs. 63,96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461) D. Interest Income Rs. 1,16,275/- Total (A+B+C+D) Rs. 68,81,000/- 4.2 Further, the assessee against

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

loss account is interest expenses). The details of secured loans in respect of which the aforesaid interest expenses was incurred by the assessee is given in Schedule II to the balance sheet and P & L account as on 31.03.2012 and the same is as follows. 2. SECURED LOANS M/s. Cholamandalam Finance – Bolero 157,905 M/s. Cholamandalam Finance

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

loss account is interest expenses). The details of secured loans in respect of which the aforesaid interest expenses was incurred by the assessee is given in Schedule II to the balance sheet and P & L account as on 31.03.2012 and the same is as follows. 2. SECURED LOANS M/s. Cholamandalam Finance – Bolero 157,905 M/s. Cholamandalam Finance

MR. SRIDHAR MURTHY S,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sridhar Murthy S Vs The Income Tax Officer Karle Zenith, 100 Ft Kemapura Nfac, Delhi Main Road, Kasaba Holbli Nagavara Village Bengaluru 560043 Pan – Awzps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Rama Raju, Ca Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Nfac, Delhi/Cit(A)’S Order Dated 28.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) , Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities On Facts & Circumstances Of Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.2,19,796/- Under The Provisions Of Section 270A Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

house property which was let out was disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. The excess loss of interest that was claimed to be carried forward was erroneous claim in the return of income filed by the local consultant of the assessee. When the mistake was pointed out, the assessee immediately withdrew the erroneous carry forward loss

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

set off of losses from AY 2009-10 to 2017-18 (page 124 of PB) which is the summary of brought forward Page 8 of 20 loss of the assessee as per the return of income filed which is reproduced below:- Business Long Loss from House or term owning and Assessment Date of Short Property

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

set off the loss of one unit with the profit of other unit. While completing the original assessment proceedings in this case, the AO had held that the assessee has been carrying on homogenous business activity consisting of various housing projects as part of the same undertaking. He further observed that the assessee has not maintained separate accounts for various

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

set off the loss of one unit with the profit of other unit. While completing the original assessment proceedings in this case, the AO had held that the assessee has been carrying on homogenous business activity consisting of various housing projects as part of the same undertaking. He further observed that the assessee has not maintained separate accounts for various

MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

set off of any of the above loss either against income from business of Sec.10A unit or other business income nor against income from House Property

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. PAN: AAACK6734C Vs. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V. Sridhar, CA : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. CIT Revenue by (DR) Date of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 09/12/2021

M/S. TEXTRON INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P) A. No.1228/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S. Textron India Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Textron Global Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.) Global Village, Rvce Post, Mylasandra, Off Mysore Road, Bangalore-560 059 …. Appellant. Pan Aacct 0118M Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P.K. Prasad. Respondent By : Smt. Neera Malhotra, Cit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.1.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijaypal Rao, J.M. :

Property Rights (IPRs). This company is not only into software products as explained in the Annual Report of this company but also is engaged in the embedded product development based on current and emerging technologies such as Multi-media, Wimax, Imaging, Imaging Process etc. The company actively engaged in developing house expertise in current and emerging markets through house development

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

set aside the assessment order and directed the A.O. to re-do the assessment by bringing to tax the annual value of “1 MG Mall” as house property income after giving due opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order so passed by Ld. Principal CIT, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 8. The ld. A.R. submitted that