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

section 139” The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Fatima Bai v. ITO, [2009] 32 DTR 243 (Kar). In the aforesaid case, the facts were that the capital gains were invested on or before the due date specified u/s. 139(4) of the Act, but the unutilized capital gain had not been deposited in the specified

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

gain but in other matters also. We may mention here that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the proviso to section 54F(4) by means of writ proceeding. 10. From a plain reading of section 54F of the Act we are of the considered opinion that the amount of capital

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

capital gains are fulfilled. 6. It should have been appreciated that only the unutilized amount has to be invested in a special account u/s 54(2) and when there is such utilization before the date of filing u/s 139, which includes 139(4), the requirement of deposit in special account does not arise. 7. The NFAC ought to have appreciated

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

10%, and had also declared short term capital loss arising from STT-paid transactions taxable under section 111A of the Act. The assessee had claimed set off of this short- term capital loss against long term capital gain

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

Section 48, the language employed is unambiguous. The intention is very clear. When a capital asset is transferred, in order to determine the capital gain Page 9 of 16 from such transfer, what is to be seen is, out of full value of the consideration received or accruing, the cost of acquisition of the asset, the cost of improvement

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

10. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Sec.2(47)(v) rws Sec.53A of the Transfer of Property Act has no application Page 3 of 40 to the agreement of sale executed between the appellant and IDEB and consequently there was no transfer in the relevant assessment year to subject the capital gains

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

capital gains. The provisions of section 56 read with section 10(3) are quite apposite. Entire sale consideration not allocable

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

10. We have to look at the definition of the term “Short term capital gain” because what is not short term capital gain is Long term capital gain and that is the way Long term capital gain has been defined in the Act. Short term capital gain means capital gain arising from the transfer of a short term capital asset

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRUE NORTH FUND IIIA , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed

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

capital gain of Rs, 2,46,50,93,394, as computed under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the sale of Mahindra CIE shares after taking into consideration the benefit of indexation. No doubt the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions of the Section 10

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

10. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 11. Now, we take up the three appeals related to the Asst. year 2007-08 in which all three assessee being the partners of the erstwhile firm raised the sole issue that whether the capital gain accruing to the assessee on transfer of land under the joint development agreement

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

10. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 11. Now, we take up the three appeals related to the Asst. year 2007-08 in which all three assessee being the partners of the erstwhile firm raised the sole issue that whether the capital gain accruing to the assessee on transfer of land under the joint development agreement

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

10%, and had also declared short\nterm capital loss arising from STT-paid transactions taxable under\nsection 111A of the Act. The assessee had claimed set off of this short-\nterm capital loss against long term capital gain taxable at 20%.\n7.1 Referring to section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

capital gain shall be chargeable to\nincome tax as income of the previous year in which the certificate of\ncompletion for the whole or part of the project is issued by the\ncompetent authority. Being so, the provisions of section 45(5A) of\nthe Act cannot be applied to a present assessee as the said law is\napplicable from

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

section 71 of the Act), returned a total taxable Income of Rs. 2,59,15,640. 10. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the sale of the leasehold rights over the land that was sold gave rise to long term capital gain

SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

gain is charged to tax in the previous year in which the transfer takes place. Section 2(47) defines what is transfer and it reads as follows : Page 5 of 23 (47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains arising therefrom to tax under the Act. Satisfaction of condition for availing exemption under section 47(iv) of the Act ITA Nos. 1783 and 1784/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 10 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in denying the benefit of section 47(iv) of the Act on the ground that the entire share capital

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains arising therefrom to tax under the Act. Satisfaction of condition for availing exemption under section 47(iv) of the Act ITA Nos. 1783 and 1784/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 10 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in denying the benefit of section 47(iv) of the Act on the ground that the entire share capital

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

section 54F of the Act, capital gain was invested in construction of residential house, but the fact that actual construction was completed beyond the period contemplated u/s. 54F of the Act was no ground to deny the benefit of deduction u/s. 54F. Applying the same analogy, the assessee pleaded that the capital gain in question should be allowed as deduction

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

gain arising from sale of land situated at Survey No.40, Chikkanahalli Kammanahalli, Sarjapur hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. The assessee claimed that the said land is situated beyond the Municipal limits 10 kms. and therefore, it is not a capital asset as per section