M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

business loss against the short-term capital gain. However, after adjusting the capital gains of the year against the brought . Page 5 of 8 forward short-term capital loss of Rs. 4,86,524/- and claiming deduction u/s 80 at Rs. 3,94,378/- returned the taxable income

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

gains of business income under the head ‘Admissible’ thereby, arriving at a ‘nil’ income from the slump sale. 5. During the course of the assessment, the Ld.AO called for the details of computation of the net worth for which the assessee submitted the below details. The AO considering the provisions of the section 50B of the Income

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains chargeable to income-tax. The income is chargeable to tax u/s 4, which is a charging section. Scope of Income is defined u/s 5. The heads of income is enumerated u/s 14. There are five heads of income, namely income from Salaries, Income from House Property , Profits and Gains of A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek Business

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income

SHRI. K.T. SANATH,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

business, income from short term capital gain and long term capital gain. The assessee has shown loss from trading in shares

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

business’ or ‘income from capital gains’. The assessee has shown the income from layout formation as ‘income from capital gains

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

Income chargeable under the head capital gain shall be computed by deducting from the full & CO 86/Bang/2015 Page 16 of 24 value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer, and (ii) cost of acquisition of asset and the cost

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

business income, capital gain and other sources. In the return of income, the assessee declared Gross Total Income-GTI of Rs. 37,47,06,373/- out of which

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

income filed for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30/11/2005, the assessee returned Capital Gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings put up on it by the assessee as Short Term Capital Gains at Rs. Page 5 of 13 3,67,67,836 and after adjusting current years business

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

business or commercial rights are taxable under the head "Capital gains". The amount of "capital gains" is computed according to section 48 of the Income

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

business income and capital gains (whether Short-Term Capital Gains (STCG) or Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG)) arising from the Joint

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Income under the head Business holding that the appellant being a real estate businessman has failed to demonstrate that property sold was held as capital asset. On proper appreciation of facts, evidence available and the law applicable, the property sold was held as investment/ Capital Asset and the same is assessable under the head Short Term Capital Gain

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Income under the head Business holding that the appellant being a real estate businessman has failed to demonstrate that property sold was held as capital asset. On proper appreciation of facts, evidence available and the law applicable, the property sold was held as investment/ Capital Asset and the same is assessable under the head Short Term Capital Gain

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Income under the head Business holding that the appellant being a real estate businessman has failed to demonstrate that property sold was held as capital asset. On proper appreciation of facts, evidence available and the law applicable, the property sold was held as investment/ Capital Asset and the same is assessable under the head Short Term Capital Gain

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Income under the head Business holding that the appellant being a real estate businessman has failed to demonstrate that property sold was held as capital asset. On proper appreciation of facts, evidence available and the law applicable, the property sold was held as investment/ Capital Asset and the same is assessable under the head Short Term Capital Gain

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Income under the head Business holding that the appellant being a real estate businessman has failed to demonstrate that property sold was held as capital asset. On proper appreciation of facts, evidence available and the law applicable, the property sold was held as investment/ Capital Asset and the same is assessable under the head Short Term Capital Gain

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Income under the head Business holding that the appellant being a real estate businessman has failed to demonstrate that property sold was held as capital asset. On proper appreciation of facts, evidence available and the law applicable, the property sold was held as investment/ Capital Asset and the same is assessable under the head Short Term Capital Gain