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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reopen the assessment cannot be challenged by assessee at this stage and he may question the additions made on the basis of seized material separately. Accordingly, framing assessment u/s 153A of the Act is upheld in the assessment year 2007-08. This legal ground is dismissed in this AY 2007-08. Assessment year 2008-09:- 9. In assessment year

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reopen the assessment cannot be challenged by assessee at this stage and he may question the additions made on the basis of seized material separately. Accordingly, framing assessment u/s 153A of the Act is upheld in the assessment year 2007-08. This legal ground is dismissed in this AY 2007-08. Assessment year 2008-09:- 9. In assessment year

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reopen the assessment cannot be challenged by assessee at this stage and he may question the additions made on the basis of seized material separately. Accordingly, framing assessment u/s 153A of the Act is upheld in the assessment year 2007-08. This legal ground is dismissed in this AY 2007-08. Assessment year 2008-09:- 9. In assessment year

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reopen the assessment cannot be challenged by assessee at this stage and he may question the additions made on the basis of seized material separately. Accordingly, framing assessment u/s 153A of the Act is upheld in the assessment year 2007-08. This legal ground is dismissed in this AY 2007-08. Assessment year 2008-09:- 9. In assessment year

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reopen the assessment cannot be challenged by assessee at this stage and he may question the additions made on the basis of seized material separately. Accordingly, framing assessment u/s 153A of the Act is upheld in the assessment year 2007-08. This legal ground is dismissed in this AY 2007-08. Assessment year 2008-09:- 9. In assessment year

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reopen the assessment cannot be challenged by assessee at this stage and he may question the additions made on the basis of seized material separately. Accordingly, framing assessment u/s 153A of the Act is upheld in the assessment year 2007-08. This legal ground is dismissed in this AY 2007-08. Assessment year 2008-09:- 9. In assessment year

M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

reopening and accordingly erred in upholding the reassessment as done by the assessing officer without appreciating that there was no income escaped assessment under the head 'capital gains

SMT. P.HAMSAVENI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

capital gains is not chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2008-09 but it is chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2007-08. Therefore the Assessing Officer has reopened

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. ANUGRAHA SHELTERS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2006-07

gain, the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.3.2013. 4. Before the A.O., the assessee contested the reopening of assessment. The assessee also submitted that the above said land has been held as stock in trade by the assessee and not as “capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S L K TRUST , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09 The Dcit, Vs. M/S. L. K. Trust, Circle – 5(2)(1), #9, Seshadri Road, Bangalore – 560 009. Bangalore. Pan: Aaatl 0522 A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri. V. Sridhar, Ca Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.03.2017 Of Cit(A)-5, Bangalore, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust. It Owned Residential Land Measuring About 11 Acres & 20 Guntas Situated In Nagashettyhally, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Property’). The Assessee Together With One M/S. Kanyakumari Builders Pvt. Ltd., As Confirming Party No.1 & M/S. Khoday India Ltd., As Confirming Party No.2, Sold The Property For A Sale Consideration Of Rs.140 Crores By A Sale Deed Dated 31.01.2007 To M/S. Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd. In The Return Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year 2007-08, The Assessee Declared Long Term Capital Gain On Sale Of The Property Only To The Extent Of 34% & Claimed That In Respect Of 66% Of The Property Sold, Capital Gain Page 2 Of 14 Cannot Be Regarded As Having Accrued To The Assessee. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings For Assessment Year 2007-08, The Assessee Submitted A Letter Dated 31.03.2008 In Which The Assessee Gave The Reasons As To Why Only 34% Of The Capital Gain Is Declared In The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2007-08. The Same Reads As Follows: Page 3 Of 14 The Ao Passed An Order Of Assessment On 31.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Accepting Long Term Capital Gain To The Extent Of 34% Declared By The Assessee.

reopening the assessment had relied on a document being Deed of Mortgage executed by one Dr. Hrudaya K Hegde & Mrs. Kavitha H. Hegde in favour of Vijaya Bank for a consideration of Rs.2,90,00,000. This evidence has no bearing upon the assessability of capital gains

SMT. K.R.YASHODHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

gain chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of omission/failure on the part of the assessee to make true and correct return of income within the time allowed as per provisions of the Act. 4. Having reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, the AO determined the capital

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

reopened assessee’s assessment merely because DDIT (Inv.) believed that transaction of capital gains shown by assessee was bogus and no separate

DEPUTY CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI VINOD NARAPPA REDDY, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran

reopened the assessment of AY 2009-10 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act in order to assess the capital gains

DEPUTY CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI VINOD NARAPPA REDDY, BENGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran

reopened the assessment of AY 2009-10 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act in order to assess the capital gains