THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

House property’? (iii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that a sum of Rs.1.91 crores cannot be disallowed

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

property in favour of M/s. Fashion Jewellery for Rs.2.42 Crores vide sale deed registered on 08.10.2012. Capital gains amounting to Rs.2,23,47,434/- was claimed as an exemption under Section 54 of the Act and Rs.25 Lakhs is claimed as an exemption for making investment in REC bonds under Section 54EC of the Act. The contention of the appellant

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD.,

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed the interest over the amount of loan utilized for giving advance to the Diamond District and Platinum City. The matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) 7 and the Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) when considered other aspects of dealing with the income from house property

M/S. RAO COMPUTER CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

house property and partly as income from other sources ignoring the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Velankani Information Systems and the Circular issued by the Department? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below erred in disallowing

M/S. RAO COMPUTERS CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD)

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

house property and partly as income from other sources ignoring the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Velankani Information Systems and the Circular issued by the Department? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below erred in disallowing

M/S. RAO COMPUTER CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

house property and partly as income from other sources ignoring the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Velankani Information Systems and the Circular issued by the Department? (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below erred in disallowing

M/S. RAO COMPUTERS CONSULTANTS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

house property and partly as income from other sources ignoring the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Velankani Information Systems and the Circular issued by the Department? (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below erred in disallowing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

disallow the exemption claimed U/s.54F of Rs,1,72,00,000/-. In response to this, the assessee’s AR vide his 4 letter dated 21.12.2011 stated that the income from house property

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Appellate authority held that there has been non-compliance of provision i.e., Section 54 of the Act and as such, assessee would not be entitled to claim deduction. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee came to be rejected by affirming the order

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIT (A) vs. SHRI J KRISHNA PALEMAR

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

disallowance of claim made under section 54F of the Act by holding that out of five properties held by assessee, three properties cannot be considered as residential properties and as for remaining two properties are concerned, remanded the matter to CIT(A) for fresh decision ignoring that assessee held more than one house

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed the interest over the amount of loan utilized for giving advance to the Diamond District and Platinum City. The matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the view of 5 the Assessing Officer. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) when considered other aspects of dealing with the income from house property

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

disallowed the interest over the amount of loan utilized for giving advance to the Diamond District and Platinum City. The matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) when considered other aspects of dealing with the income from house property

SMT. RAJAGOPAL PRATHIBA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

house property and Rs.8.54,866/- as income from other sources. The return was processed under Section 143 (1) of Act. The case having been selected for scrutiny assessment, an assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act was passed on 25.3.2015 by the assessing officer disallowing

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

house property to the extent of Rs.88,98,970/-. The Assessing Officer held that 4 investment made by the assessee does not fall within purview of Section 54F of the Act and disallowed

M/S TRIMM EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order dated 08

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

disallowed the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.1 Crore paid by the assessee to M/s Pathi Prints (hereinafter referred to as 'the lessee' for short) to vacate the leased premises and to surrender vacant possession to the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed by an order dated

K R SATYANARAYANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

house property for a sum of Rs.2,03,986/- and capital gains at Rs.19,06,984/- and declared income from other sources at Rs.1,55,438/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 30.08.2010. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 15.12.2011 after making enquiries

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

house property’. The return of income was filed by the assessee for A.Y.2007-08 on 24.10.07 declaring total income of Rs.36,04,060 comoprising of income from property of Rs.33,88,276 and income from business of Rs.2, 15, 779. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 31.10.2008. There was a survey u/s.133A of the Act conducted