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

deducted from the income. He contended that the said expense related to the property constructed and the assessee had let-out the said property and had received rental income from the house

ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

house purchased in the name of the assessee’s wife cannot be construed as the property owned by the assessee. Excluding this property standing in the name of the assessee’s wife, the property at Kodihalli bequeathed to the wife and son of the assessee being considered as justifiable by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] which has attained finality

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

house’ includes not only self occupied properties but also let out properties. It was further held that the assessee is not entitled to benefit of deduction

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

Appeal is allowed;

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

deduction on the premise that assessee owned more than one residential house. The CIT(A)3 allowed assessee’s appeal on the ground that the properties

M/S SOBHA INTERIORS (P) LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

house property by partly allowing the appeals as regards the deduction of 30% under Section 24[a] of the Act. Being

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

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

house property income also one can borrow the funds and use it for construction. That is why Section 24 of the Act allow deduction

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

house property income also one can borrow the funds and use it for construction. That is why Section 24 of the Act allow deduction

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

house property income also one can borrow the funds and use it for construction. That is why Section 24 of the Act allow deduction

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

properties, etc. For the assessment year 1999-2000, assessee claimed a deduction of interest out of the amount paid towards interest to the Banks from which the assessee had taken loan. There were also other deductions claimed from the assessee but in the present appeal, we are not required to examine the said aspect and therefore, we find that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

deduction under Section 54F when the fact that the assessee owns seven flats on which income from House Property has been

SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

property, which was estimated at Rs.91,58,083/-, which comes to Rs.45,79,042/-. Being aggrieved, by the aforesaid order, the assessee as well as the revenue filed an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal vide common order dated 02.12.2016 inter alia held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the Act as assessee

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S KARAVALI HOUSING

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Properties (supra) has held that as long as housing projects are approved by the local authorities, on a plot of land having minimum of one acre, irrespective of the number of housing projects, the assessee is entitled for deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

deduction since for the purposes of Section 54 of the Act the date of purchase was to be taken as the basis namely, entering into a agreement for purchasing the new property. It also came to be held that payment made by assessee to purchase new property fully covered the consideration of capital gains portion and as such, it came

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

deduction was allowed in respect of higher value of investment i.e., Rs.97,15,652/-, which was in respect of property situate in Koramangala. Thus, it was held that assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars in relation 6 to sale consideration of the property sold disregarding the guidance value as required under Section 50C of the Act and therefore, the assessee

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 and other sources. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, annual information return information was received by the department that the assessee has sold immovable properties and the return 4 of income did not reflect the details of the same. The Assessing Officer thereafter re opened the case by issuance of notice under

M/S MYPOL POLYMERS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE

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

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

house property and other sources. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, annual information return information was received by the department that the assessee has sold immovable properties and the return 4 of income did not reflect the details of the same. The Assessing Officer thereafter re opened the case by issuance of notice under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

property under a registered sale deed dated 28.9.1996. However, as the capital - 7 - gains to be eligible for the benefit under Section 54(1) and (2) of the Act had to be deposited on or before the due date prescribed for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1) of the Act, which was 31.7.1996, he deposited