SRI ABDUL GAFFAR S/O SRI ABDUL RAHIM vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

house property”, other than the new asset. 6. The provision of Section 54F of the Act makes it explicit that the exemption

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

house; (v) Assessee must have within a period of two years after that date purchased another property; (vi) Property purchased must be residential; (vii) Exemption

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

exemption.” 4. The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal after considering the respective case of the assessee has found that the income derived by the assessee from the flat was treated as income from house property

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

exemption.” 4. The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal after considering the respective case of the assessee has found that the income derived by the assessee from the flat was treated as income from house property

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

exemption.” 4. The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal after considering the respective case of the assessee has found that the income derived by the assessee from the flat was treated as income from house property

MR MOHAMMED BHAI TAHER BHAI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice R Devdas Writ Petition No. 58949 Of 2016 (Ulc) C/W Writ Petition No. 14158 Of 2015 (Klr-Res) Writ Petition No. 14166 Of 2015 (Klr-Res) Writ Petition No. 19251 Of 2015 (Klr-Res)

exemption granted by the State Government. It is submitted that no objections were raised either by the Deputy Commissioner or by the State Government, when a copy of the sale deed was present to the State Government and Deputy Commissioner. Learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to a communication dated 02.02.1981 made by the Special Deputy Commissioner

SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

exemption under Section 54F of the Act, it is not necessary that same sale consideration should be used for construction of new house property

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

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 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

M/S MYPOL POLYMERS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE

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

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

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. LATE KHOOBCHAND M MAKHIJA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

exemption under Section 54(2) of the Act, insofar as the investment of Rs.1.70 crores in nationalized banks? 5. The undisputed facts in this case are that the assessee has sold the house under a registered sale deed dated 7.3.1996 for a consideration of Rs.3,73,00,550/-. The indexed cost of that old house as claimed and accepted

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MR VINAY MISHRA

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act in respect of investment made in the house property in USA? 3 2. Facts

A H MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna Writ Petition No.16323 Of 2021 (Lb-Res) C/W Writ Petition No.51640 Of 2017 (Lb- Tax) Writ Petition No.19423 Of 2021 (Lb- Tax) Writ Petition No.20385 Of 2021 (Lb- Res) Writ Petition No.21130 Of 2021 (Lb- Tax) In Writ Petition No.16323 Of 2021 Between: 1. Indus Trust Having Its Registered Office At Billapura Cross, Sarjapura, Bengaluru - 562 125 Represented By Its Group Chief Financial Officer Mr V.S.Kumar, S/O Late Rama Rao C., Aged About 59 Years. 2. Indus International School Private Limited (Iispl) Having Its Registered Office At Billapura Cross, Sarjapur, Bengaluru - 562 125 Represented By Its Group Chief Financial Officer, Mr V.S.Kumar

property tax by the Town Municipal Council, Mulki, on the buildings belonging to the Respondent-institution should be struck down. It is ordered accordingly and the Writ Petition is dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied) The issue that is answered by the Court was after considering the building being used predominantly for educational purpose would be exempted from the levy of tax under

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

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

exemption under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.88,98,970/- on account of acquisition of a new residential house property

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

Appeal is allowed;

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

properties, which are business assets of the appellant. Appellant has only one residential house other than one investment made in new assets as on date of sale. Therefore, I direct the AO to allow the appellant deduction claimed under Section 54F. Further, I direct the AO to verify the quantum of exemption

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

property, for which investment is made needs to be situated in India for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 54F from Assessment year 2015-16 only and not prior to that period. In the instant case, the investment in a residential house

M/S MANYATA PROMOTERS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petition is rejected

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice L Narayana Swamy Writ Petition No.56279 Of 2015 (Lb-Bbmp) Between: M/S.Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Having Its Office At First Floor, Classic Court No.9/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore 560 025 Represented By Its Authorized Signatory, Mr.B S Mohan.

exemptions provided under this Act and such rules as may be prescribed, the property tax of all buildings or vacant lands or both situated within the city of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike area shall be levied every year in the following manner. (2) The property tax shall be levied by the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike by resolution passed as specified