DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

capital gains on sale of flats from AY 2013-14 to 2017-18 and this fact has been brought to the notice of AO during the proceedings u/s. 153C. The ld. AR also & CO 2/Bang/2022 Page 11 of 27 submitted that the assessment of AY 2010-11 is unabated since the time limit for issue of notice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings u/s.148. Therefore, the indexation for cost improvement is disallowed and the long term capital gain on sale of land

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

capital gains and there is no tangible information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. The reassessment proceedings is on a change

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

capital gains and there is no tangible information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. The reassessment proceedings is on a change

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

capital gains and there is no tangible information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. The reassessment proceedings is on a change

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

capital gains and there is no tangible information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. The reassessment proceedings is on a change

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C of the Act in the case of assessee is not in accordance with law and therefore assumption of jurisdiction is itself not in order, therefore the order framing the assessment not based on incriminating material

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C of the Act in the case of assessee is not in accordance with law and therefore assumption of jurisdiction is itself not in order, therefore the order framing the assessment not based on incriminating material

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C of the Act in the case of assessee is not in accordance with law and therefore assumption of jurisdiction is itself not in order, therefore the order framing the assessment not based on incriminating material

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C of the Act in the case of assessee is not in accordance with law and therefore assumption of jurisdiction is itself not in order, therefore the order framing the assessment not based on incriminating material

DCIT vs. M/S MINITECHS AEROTOOLS PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2007-08

capital gain brought to tax in the reassessment proceedings and addition to business income by disallowance of labour charges, the AO initiated

ESSAE TERAOKA LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

reassessment was completed under Section 143(3) rws 147 vide order dt.29.11.2012 whereby the Assessing Officer has brought to tax the capital gains

VENKATARAMA RAJU N,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is set aside for

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavansri Venkatarama Raju N, Earlier No.11/51, 7Th Main, 9Th Cross, Rk Layout, Padmanabha Nagar, B’Lore-70. Now : No.82, Classic Orchards, Behind Meenakshi Temple, Phase 1, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 076. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hn Khincha, Ca Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 31-8-2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 8-9-2016 O R D E R

reassessment proceedings, the assessee explained to the learned AO that he had declared the capital gains arising on this transfer

POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

reassessment proceedings the assessee has furnished evidences with respect to the contract notes for purchase and sale of shares through registered broker, Demat account statement reflecting delivery-based transaction, bank statement showing payment for Page 5 of 8 purchase and receipt of sale proceeds through banking channel, capital account and computation of capital gain