SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

cash. However, he deposited the same in S.B. Account in the names of self, his wife and children. It is not in dispute that Rs. 1.40 Crores was used for repayment of loan and Rs. 4.60 Crores was deposited in Capital Gains

SRI JOSEPH K.ZACHARIAH ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.879/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15

cash but to invest in construction of a new residential house, the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of exemption u/s. 54 for not depositing the unutilized capital gain

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

deposits received from IDEB were refunded at a later date. Therefore the transaction of sale / JDA with IDEB remained intact, without the assessee having duly declared the transactions as liable to capital gains. The AO in this regard has recorded IDEB in its letter dated 11/03/2014 had expressly admitted that the JDA dated 30/03/2007 remained in force

HARISH RAMCHANDRA JOSHI(HUF),HUBLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS , HUBLI

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

cash consideration received on sale of such capital asset is deposited in the bank account and capital gains arising therefrom

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

deposits amounting to Rs.14,95,300 were unexplained or undisclosed income of the assessee. 9. In view of the above position, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 10. The appeal is dismissed." Mr. Bhaskar Joseph, Bangalore Page 13 of 25 7.2 The Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

gain/ short term capital loss. For preparing this cash trail Investigation Wing, Kolkata has followed the money movement from undisclosed proprietorship accounts, where cash is being deposited

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

gain/ short term capital loss. For preparing this cash trail Investigation Wing, Kolkata has followed the money movement from undisclosed proprietorship accounts, where cash is being deposited

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

gain/ short term capital loss. For preparing this cash trail Investigation Wing, Kolkata has followed the money movement from undisclosed proprietorship accounts, where cash is being deposited

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

gain/ short term capital loss. For preparing this cash trail Investigation Wing, Kolkata has followed the money movement from undisclosed proprietorship accounts, where cash is being deposited

T. SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

capital gains in his return of income. Explanation of the assessee was sought. Reply of the assessee was that the entire sum of Rs.66,50,000/-realized on sale was given by him to his brother Shri T.Vijayakumar for acquiring a house bearing No.199, 12th Main , 4th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034. The payments to his brother Shri T.Vijayakumar, were

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gain is offered to tax which is also a source (iv) The cash flow statement of the assessee has been explained to the lower authorities (v) The cash deposits

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gain is offered to tax which is also a source (iv) The cash flow statement of the assessee has been explained to the lower authorities (v) The cash deposits

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gain is offered to tax which is also a source (iv) The cash flow statement of the assessee has been explained to the lower authorities (v) The cash deposits

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gain is offered to tax which is also a source (iv) The cash flow statement of the assessee has been explained to the lower authorities (v) The cash deposits

NANJAPPA UMASHANKER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

gains of business or profession". However, as is a common requirement in the nature of business carried on by the assessee, he had set aside a significant sum of money to meet costs of labour, raw material, etc., in the event that any contracts were awarded to him. That apart, the assessee had, on 13-06-2006, purchased the immovable

K.NAGESH ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly Grounds 6-7 raised by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013 – 14

deposits made in capital gains account scheme, and rejected claim of deduction under section 54F of the said amount for following reasons: • Assessee kept the cash

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUJEEB URRAHMAN, BANGALORE

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

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

cash to invest in construction even if not deposited in the Capital Gain Deposit Account. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

capital gain which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

deposit, the transferee is avoiding adhering to the construction schedule on one ground or the other, and there is no surety that the sales consideration will actually be realized by the Assessee, and yet the Assessee is expected to pay capital gains on the entire estimated sales consideration. When payment on time is essence of the contract, and the payments