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

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

section 44AD of the Act. However, the AO observed\nthat the agreement with the SBI is a composite agreement. The\nassessee is not into the business of renting out properties and as\nsuch, the income from maintenance charges received has direct\nnexus with the property and derived from the property only and\nhence the amount received as per the lease

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property, the amount is to be deposited with the ‘Capital Gain Account Scheme’ with bank within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, which as per ld. JCIT DR , the assessee failed to do so. Prayers were made by ld. JCIT DR to deny deduction under Section 54 of the Act. At this stage

S.M. VINOD (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SRI. S M MUNIYAPPA),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

section 54 and 54F of the Act. 4) That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the residential property in Jayanagar has to be considered as one residential house since it is a duplex house containing single Khatha number, single Property Identification (PID) number. Each of the above grounds is independent of one another

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

section that the learned Assessing Officer did not invoke. Moreover, the learned CIT (Appeals) failed to provide adequate justification for applying cash credit provisions when the disallowance pertains to expenditure. Further, considering the agricultural sector is an unorganized one, and given the nature of the Assessee's profession, maintaining comprehensive records of all incurred expenses is extremely challenging. The Assessee

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

house property and other sources. The assessee has been maintaining books of account for the business carried on and the same is also subject to audit u/s 44AB of the Act. 2.2 For the year under appeal, the assessee e-filed his return of income on 27/10/2017 declaring a total loss of Rs.25,25,971/- from the aforesaid sources

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

house property and other sources. The assessee has been maintaining books of account for the business carried on and the same is also subject to audit u/s 44AB of the Act. 2.2 For the year under appeal, the assessee e-filed his return of income on 27/10/2017 declaring a total loss of Rs.25,25,971/- from the aforesaid sources

C.K. RAMAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

house and later redeposited the same in his bank account when the intended property transaction did not materialize. The explanation put forth by the assessee was not found to be satisfactory by the Assessing Officer. He proceeded to invoke the provisions of section 68

SHRI. G B SHIVARAJAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

68,390/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,57,770/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant has utilized the capital gains for acquiring a house property, by making payments to the seller of the house property and has made a proper claim of deduction under

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

property constructed at No.617, Hebbal, Bangalore. The assessment was completed by disallowing the exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act on the premises that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden placed on her with respect to the construction of residential house and has not filed any documentary evidences in support of the claim of deduction

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,19,120/-\n3.4 Whereas, while totalling, the loss of House property income\ntreated as positive income accordingly it is added and instead of\narriving at GTI of Rs. 166,30,917/- had arrived at Rs.\n169,49,437/- which is increased by Rs. 318,520/- which is twice\nthe figure of Loss of Rs. 159,260/- because of positive

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 44AD of the Act since the turnover is more than Rs.1 Crore. As such, in our humble opinion, the ratio laid down by the judgement relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Shri Girish V Yalakkishettar Vs. ITO (supra) and Sarka Jain Vs. CIT (supra) cannot be applied. Further there is no rule

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

property. In the special facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, it is necessary to hold that the amount utilised by the assessee to purchase the land was in fact utilised for acquiring/constructing a residential house. Without purchasing land the house cannot be constructed. The first step Page 9 of 16 should be the purchase of land. That

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. The claim of the Assessee is that it is chargeable to tax as profits and gains of business and profession. 5. Coming to the ground no. 17, with respect to the depreciation, the fact shows that Assessee has made an addition of Rs. 15,56,16,965/- and intangible assets were added

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

68,25,802/- on the alleged transfer of property during the year invoking the provisions of sec. 50C of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.1 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that there was no transfer of the property during the year under appeal and hence, the computation

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property, income from partnership firms in which they were partners and also income from other sources. They filed their return of income for the subject AY declaring a total income of Nil and Rs 2,68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property, income from partnership firms in which they were partners and also income from other sources. They filed their return of income for the subject AY declaring a total income of Nil and Rs 2,68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section

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