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

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

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

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

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

deposited in Capital Gain Account Scheme. Thus, if the above conditions are satisfied, assessee is entitled to claim benefit of the provision of Section 54. 13. Facts on hand would disclose that assessee had owned a flat at Mumbai and sold the same on 04.02.2003 for a total consideration of 1,70,00,000/-. Subsequent to such sale she entered

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

deposit of Rs.45,00,000 which is 15% of the consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000, the assessee opted for one time consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000 only. The assessee also submitted the AO has not considered the explanation and details given by the assessee and did not provide an opportunity to present the case. 31. The CIT(Appeals

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

deposit of Rs.45,00,000 which is 15% of the consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000, the assessee opted for one time consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000 only. The assessee also submitted the AO has not considered the explanation and details given by the assessee and did not provide an opportunity to present the case. 31. The CIT(Appeals

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

deposit of Rs.45,00,000 which is 15% of the consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000, the assessee opted for one time consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000 only. The assessee also submitted the AO has not considered the explanation and details given by the assessee and did not provide an opportunity to present the case. 31. The CIT(Appeals

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

deposit of Rs.45,00,000 which is 15% of the consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000, the assessee opted for one time consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000 only. The assessee also submitted the AO has not considered the explanation and details given by the assessee and did not provide an opportunity to present the case. 31. The CIT(Appeals

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

deposit of Rs.45,00,000 which is 15% of the consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000, the assessee opted for one time consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000 only. The assessee also submitted the AO has not considered the explanation and details given by the assessee and did not provide an opportunity to present the case. 31. The CIT(Appeals

MR. FIROZ AHAMMAD MUJAWAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Firoz Ahammad, Vs. Ito, Acharya Iti No 15, 1St Cross 1St Stage Peenya Ward – 3(3)(4), Industrial Estate, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058, Karnataka. Pan : Agqpm 8839 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh G, Ca Revenue By : Shri.Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

capital gain. However, this explanation of the assessee was not accepted observing that the assessee is unable to substantiate the source of cash deposit

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposited in Capital Gain Account Scheme. Thus, if the above conditions are satisfied, assessee is entitled to claim benefit of the provision of Section 54. 13. Facts on hand would disclose that assessee had owned a flat at Mumbai and sold the same on 04.02.2003 for a total consideration of 1,70,00,000/-. Subsequent to such sale she entered

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

capital by the cooperative societies engaged in providing credit facilities to the members is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the ruling of Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd(supra), Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and Lalitamba Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita vs. ITO as well as by the decision

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly\nnotified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption\nfrom payment of income tax by retaining the cash

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

Cash or Kind is\nnot a necessary requirement for computation of Capital\nGains during the year of Transfer of the asset. It is evident\nfrom the JDA and GPA dtd: 17-01-2008 that the undivided\nportion of the land was transferred in favour of the\ndeveloper in the F.Y 2007-08 relevant to the A.Y 2008-09.\nTherefore

SHRI. MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Muniyappa Muniraju, No. 94/6, 8Th Main, The Income Tax New Oxford School Officer, Road, Ward – 4 (3)(4), Begur Main Road, Bangalore. Hongasandra, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan: Abbpm4961A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G. Satyanarayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr)

cash deposited to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs, the balance sum of Rs.43,39,000/- was treated as unexplained income and brought to tax u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 2.9 The Ld.AO further noticed that the Assessee, in the Computation of income for the A.Y.2017-18 claimed NIL income from Long Term Capital Gains

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

cash, but to invest in construction of new residential house property and the delay was beyond the control of the assessee, then the assessee has to keep the consideration in a separate capital gain deposit

PRADIP KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(7), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

cash deposits. Reliance: CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan [237 ITR 570 (SC)). 3. The addition results in double taxation, as the AO has already accepted the computation of long-term capital gain

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

Capital Gains’. After satisfying himself on the above issue, the assessing officer issued another notice u/s. 142(1) dated 25.11.2016 seeking details of deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act. The assessing officer has requested for approval of the Pr. CIT for converting the case from limited to complete scrutiny. The approval was communicated to assessing officer on 29.11.2016. However