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

Disallowance of Interest Paid in Computing Long Term Capital Gain 7,82,394 ----------------- Assessed Income 2,66,18,966 ----------------- & CO 86/Bang/2015

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

disallowance of interest paid on borrowings to acquire the subject property which was sold. 3. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the deduction claimed u/s 24(b) in computing income from House Property is different and the deduction of interest claimed in computing capital gains

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gains and the tax payable. That is precisely what has been held by the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid Judgment which in our view is the correct legal decision.” 11. Accordingly we direct the AO to recompute the cost of acquisition in the light of above discussion. 12. The next ground is with regard to disallowance

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gain. The methodology of reducing the exemption of STCG of Rs.2,50,000/- as calculated by the assessee is not correct as in our view it will not reduce the actual cost of the acquisition incurred for the property. 9.1 Further, with regard toadoption of the guidance value over the actual sale consideration in respect of villa no.13

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gain. The methodology of reducing the exemption of STCG of Rs.2,50,000/- as calculated by the assessee is not correct as in our view it will not reduce the actual cost of the acquisition incurred for the property. 9.1 Further, with regard toadoption of the guidance value over the actual sale consideration in respect of villa no.13

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

capital gain accounts scheme, accordingly deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs.28,81,917/- was disallowed and added back to the total

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

capital gains of Rs.84 lakhs was earned from the shares which were purchased in earlier year and shown in the balance sheet as investment. The AO has accepted the investment in the balance sheet in the earlier year as there is no disallowance

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gains in assessee case are computed at Rs. 60,48,571/- (Rs. 1,33,89,451 — Rs. 73,40,480) and brought to tax during A.Y. 2015-16. Disallowance

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

capital gains as computed and upheld is liable to be deleted. Page 4 of 40 16. On the facts the learned Commissioner (A)ought to have accepted the explanation and submissions made by the appellant and refrained from upholding the impugned additions. 17. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner (A)erred in not giving any finding with regard to levy

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

Disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,08,54,687; (ii) Non-consideration of claim of assessee that capital gain on sale

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

capital gains in accordance with law. After such set off, tax was computed and deductions under Chapter VI-A were claimed correctly. 6.3 However, while processing the return, the CPC disallowed

SMT.ANUPAMA NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

disallowance of claim under Section 54F of 2 the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of the capital gains

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital loss against the\ncapital gains in accordance with law. After such set off, tax was\ncomputed and deductions under Chapter VI-A were claimed correctly.\n6.3 However, while processing the return, the CPC disallowed

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

capital gain is disallowed. The claim o deduction U/s.54B can only be allowed if the conditions are fulfilled. In this

PRADEEP KAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Geoergeassessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain in terms of provisions of section 45(2) of the Act and allow deduction u/s 54 of the Act in respect to the residential house purchased by the assessee. 28. Ground No. 3 & 4 relate to disallowance

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

Disallowance of short term capital loss of INR 550,0891891 on transfer of investment and erroneous computation of the same at INR 146,900,010 17.erred in questioning the business rationale behind hiving off the sprinkler business by TFSIPL as opposed to shutting it down completely and transfer of CCDs to Aigua Sprinkler at nominal value by TFSIP

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

disallowed claim of assessee and made additions amounting to Rs.87,92,748/-, that was claimed as exemption by assessee. 6. Aggrieved by addition made, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 7. Ld.CIT(A) allowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 54F to the extent of Rs.64,00,000/- that was deposited into capital gains

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

capital gain was Rs.3,27,03,509/-. The deed of sale was executed by the assessee, her father, her sister and her brother on 22.08.2015. The assessee had claimed the benefits under Section 54F of the Income tax Act, in view the acquisition of the residential house property and re-construction of the residential house property. It is submitted before

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

disallowed and the Long Term Capital Gain arising on sale of capital asset of Rs.1,86,63,291/- has been