SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

property. Section 54F of the Act is a beneficial provision, which has been enacted with an object to promote investment on housing and to enable the assessee to save tax on capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

HOUSE, JALAHALLI I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 7 GOKULA BANGALORE-560 054 PAN: AAATM34931G …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 21/11/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1651/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, PRAYING

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PRABHAVATHY

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

HOUSE, JALAHALLI I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 7 GOKULA BANGALORE-560 054 PAN: AAATM34931G …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 21/11/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1651/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, PRAYING

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.ANANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

HOUSE, JALAHALLI I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 7 GOKULA BANGALORE-560 054 PAN: AAATM34931G …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 21/11/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1651/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, PRAYING

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

HOUSE, JALAHALLI I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 7 GOKULA BANGALORE-560 054 PAN: AAATM34931G …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 21/11/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1651/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, PRAYING

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PATTABHIRAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

HOUSE, JALAHALLI I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 7 GOKULA BANGALORE-560 054 PAN: AAATM34931G …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 21/11/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1651/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, PRAYING

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

HOUSE, JALAHALLI I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 7 GOKULA BANGALORE-560 054 PAN: AAATM34931G …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 21/11/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1651/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, PRAYING

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT HEMA KRISHNAMURTHY

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

house property at the time of transfer of the properties giving rise to capital gains and claimed exemption under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

property and later sells it at profit, the gain made by the company will be assessable under the head ‘Capital gains’. Similarly, if a company purchases a rented house

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

property and later sells it at profit, the gain made by the company will be assessable under the head ‘Capital gains’. Similarly, if a company purchases a rented house

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

property in question and the capital gains earned thereon had not been declared for tax. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was brought to tax. 15. Further at paragraph 8 of the order relating to bogus transportation expenses claimed for the assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the assessing officer has brought on record that the appellant

M/S BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

house property and is to be allowed as a deduction under "profits and gains of business and profession"? 2. Whether the Tribunal in law as well as facts correct in restricting the deduction for interest on borrowed funds u/s 24 only for the period after the building was let out, while clause (b) of Section 24 permits deduction of interest

DR SYED ANWAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

property and by the said agreement, a perpetual right to use an existing passage has been given by M/s.Pennar Hotels Private Limited to the purchasers of the land. The document does not in any way support the Revenue's claim. The other documents do not contain any name or signature of any person. 10. In respect of the lands purchased

SHRI. SHANKARLAL GILADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: G.NARENDAR,M.NAGAPRASANNA

house property, captive income and income from other sources for the assessment year 2013-14. The appellant filed return of income on 23.10.2013 declaring his total income of Rs.10,35,060/- for the assessment year 2013-14. His statement of computation of tax was also enclosed to the return that was filed. 3. It is the case of the appellant

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

In the result, the above appeal is allowed and the

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Housing Development and Investments. For any payment of this nature to be claimed as expenditure, it is important that the said property should have either been acquired by the appellant as a fixed asset or/and it should have started yielding revenue. This payment, in effect, is towards buying back the rights in the property for which the appellant had received

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

property, in pursuance of an illegal or immoral contract, to recover it back; for 'the Courts will not assist an illegal transaction in any respect'. The maxim is therefore, intimately connected with the more comprehensive rule of law, ex turpi causa non oritur actio, on account of which no Court will allow itself to be made the instrument of enforcing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

HOUSE, NO.22 M.G. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 PAN: AABCT0529M …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) . . . . I.T.A No.221/2015 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 30/12/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1143/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS