“date of transfer”

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

land sold by assessee is non-agricultural land. Further, it was submitted that land has been used by the assessee till the date of transfer as agricultural land and also assessee declared income from agriculture in its return of income an the same was not accepted by the department ... existing in the subject property even on the date of sale. This clearly attributes the assessee's assertion that even on the date of transfer, the subject land was held to be agriculture. In this regard, we would like to refer to the Certificate of Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture

Sri. Sandeep Srinivas, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Sq.ft area of 3 acres and 24 guntas 158994 sq.ft. 45% transferred to the developer 71547 sq.ft 55% owner"s share 87447 sq.ft Date of transfer of 45% of property to developer (Date on which the developer was permitted to develop/start 18-11-2014 development on the property which ... subject matter of JDA Sale consideration as on date of transfer as per guidance value on 18-11-2014 Rs,4,29,28,200/- (71547 x Rs.600/-sq.ft Less cost of acquisition - Cost of improvement - Less cost of conversion - Total capital Gains — assessee's share Rs.4,29,28,200 Less

M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

values for individual assets and liabilities’. What is relevant to note is that albeit the value of individual assets and liabilities on the date of transfer is mutually agreed to between the parties which ultimately stands embedded in overall figure of lump sum consideration of the undertaking, but such lump ... respect of each asset of the undertaking, as reduced by the amount of liabilities appearing in the balance sheet as on the date of transfer. The full value of consideration towards the transfer of all the assets of the undertaking as one unit, whether recorded or unrecorded in the books

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dated 16.07.2007. Also the lands transferred were not a capital asset, since there were agricultural operations carried on it, on as on the date of transfer. 4. The AO however, was of the view that the lands were converted in the name of the assessee on 21.06.2005, the transferee being ... Hence, the AO concluded that the appellant has failed to prove that agricultural activity was carried out on the land sold till the date of transfer. (d) The AO also was of the view that after getting the land converted for the intended non agricultural purpose, the assessee

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dated 16.07.2007. Also the lands transferred were not a capital asset, since there were agricultural operations carried on it, on as on the date of transfer. 4. The AO however, was of the view that the lands were converted in the name of the assessee on 21.06.2005, the transferee being ... Hence, the AO concluded that the appellant has failed to prove that agricultural activity was carried out on the land sold till the date of transfer. (d) The AO also was of the view that after getting the land converted for the intended non agricultural purpose, the assessee

Shri. P. Krishna Reddy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

erred in not adjudicating on the legal principle raised that the reference to "one residential house" connotes to "one residential house" on the date of transfer of the asset and not on the new residential units received in terms of the sharing agreement, to be received on a future date ... income of the assessee disallowed the claim made by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act on the ground that `on the date of transfer of the 4 Sri P.Krishna Reddy original asset’ the assessee was the owner of 14 residential houses that he was receiving as consideration

M/S Godha Realtors Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

that looking to the relevant dates, if one considers the date on which the assessee had decided to sell the property as the date of transfer or sale, then the appellant- assessee would be entitled to benefits under Section 54 of the Act. The Court, therefore, posed a question

M/S Godha Realtors Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

that looking to the relevant dates, if one considers the date on which the assessee had decided to sell the property as the date of transfer or sale, then the appellant- assessee would be entitled to benefits under Section 54 of the Act. The Court, therefore, posed a question

M/S. Fortigo Network Logistics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

amount set apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company; (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than