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

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

set aside and the\nappeal allowed in the interests of justice.\n\nTOTAL TAX EFFECT\n14,80,788\n\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of\nincome for the assessment year 2018-19 on 12.8.2018 declaring\ntotal income of Rs.2,45,80,090/-. The said return of income was\nduly 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

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

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

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property\nRs. 4,19,043/-\nB. Business Income\nRs. 4,50,000/-\nC. Short term capital gain taxable at normal rate\nRs. 58,95,682/-\n(Rs. 63,96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461)\nD. Interest Income\nRs. 1,16,275/-\nTotal (A+B+C+D)\nRs. 68,81,000/-\n4.2 Further, the assessee

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

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

setting aside the orders of the authorities below and deleting the addition. Hence, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee.” 7.3 In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, the assessee and two other co-owners executed a registered lease deed on 01.02.2016 (within the relevant financial year) with the lessee for a monthly rent of Rs.11

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BPL LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bpl Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), 11Th Km, Bannerghatta Road, Arakere, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaacb 9461 B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

House Property”. The assessee had sold its properties at Delhi and Bengaluru and derives Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.14,88,16,483/-. The assessee had Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) of Rs.27,55,73,246/- carried forward from Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee set

SRI BANKAPUR CHANNABASAPPA UMAPATHI ,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

loss of Rs.1,03,41,582/- which was set off against the concerned year's income from house property of Rs.6

SRI BANKAPUR CHANNABASAPPA UMAPATHI ,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

loss of Rs.1,03,41,582/- which was set off against the concerned year's income from house property of Rs.6

M/S NETRA SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC) (ASSESSSS IS ASSESSED TO TAX WITH ACIT CIRCLE-5(1)(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

loss from house property was set off against income from other sources to arrive at the net loss of Rs.1

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

house property to tax. Except for this directive from the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), all other aspects of the original assessment order remain unchanged. Consequently, this represents only a modification of the initial assessment order. It is possible, however, that when the PCIT cancels the original assessment under Section 263 and instructs the AO to conduct

M/S. S I MEDIA LLP, ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

loss as non-genuine on the grounds that the assessee had sold the property to the son of one of the partners. 7. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) held that the said transaction to the son of the partner was genuine and therefore the same could not be . Page 3 of 8 treated as bogus. However, while dealing with

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

houses, cottages, shops, depots, warehouses, machinery, plant, stock in trade, mineral rights, concessions, privileges, licenses, easement or interest in or with respect to any property and to carry on business as proprietors of flat and buildings and to let on lease or otherwise apartments therein and to provide for the conveniences commonly provided in fiats, suites and residential and business

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

houses, cottages, shops, depots, warehouses, machinery, plant, stock in trade, mineral rights, concessions, privileges, licenses, easement or interest in or with respect to any property and to carry on business as proprietors of flat and buildings and to let on lease or otherwise apartments therein and to provide for the conveniences commonly provided in fiats, suites and residential and business

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

set off of business loss against income from house property and income from other sources. A search action was conducted

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

set off of business loss against income from house property and income from other sources. A search action was conducted

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

house during the assessment year 2013-14 and hence not entitled for claim u/s. 54F. The AO passed an assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 21.03.2018 disallowing the claim u/s. 54F and recomputed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,50,88,284. Aggrieved Page 4 of 23 the assessee filed an appeal before