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%, short-term capital gains taxable at normal rates, and had also incurred short-term capital loss on STT-paid equity transactions. In the return of income, the assessee set off the short-term capital loss against long-term capital gains taxable at 20%. After such adjustment, the balance income taxable at normal rates was claimed as eligible for deduction

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 to inventories and non-depreciable assets can also be considered for taxation as Page 10 of 45 a receipt of casual and non-recurring nature under section 56 of the I-T Act if the assessee

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 of 17 deduction u/s. 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 1,40,00,000/- and Rs. 1,02,50,000/-respectively. On perusal of the purchase deed dated 28/06/2014, it is found that the aggregate consideration for the residential property mentioned at ITEM #1 has been paid

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

gains and interest income need to be examined in the hands of beneficiaries. 18. We heard the parties and perused the record. From the record, we notice that the primary claim of the assessee is exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the Act, as per which any income of a venture capital company or venture capital fund from investment

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

10) of the Act was placed on record by the assessee company during the assessment proceedings and therefore, it deemed it fit to direct its reexamination by the Assessing Officer. 18.1 In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is unexceptionable and therefore, does not merit any interference." 21. He submitted that similar decisions have been rendered

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

10,493 52,465 15,740 36,726 D-4 59,322 9,887 49,435 14,831 34,605 TOTAL 71,331 Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.5,26,62,915/- against the return income ofRs.5,07,94,880/- under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/12/2022

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

10,493 52,465 15,740 36,726 D-4 59,322 9,887 49,435 14,831 34,605 TOTAL 71,331 Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.5,26,62,915/- against the return income ofRs.5,07,94,880/- under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/12/2022

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

26,36,541\nRs. 6,89,11,624\nRs.89,15,48,164\n3.6 Accordingly, they stated that they would be offering capital\ngains for the assessment year 2018-19 on the above basis in course\nof assessment proceedings after receipt of notice.\n3.7 Both these persons had accordingly filed returns in response\nto notice u/s.153C of the Act offering capital

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain taxable at another\nrate is not supported by the plain language of section 70 of the Act. The\nAct does not create separate compartments within the head "Capital\ngains" based on rates for the purpose of set off, except in the case of\nlong-term capital loss, which cannot be set off against short-term capital\ngains. No such

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

26,462 and Rs.9,24,650 respectively was credited to her account. Another sum of Rs.18,12,528 was also credited as interest on capital in her capital account. After reducing the Partner’s drawing and other payments made the balance to the credit of Assessee’s capital account was Rs.2,77,88,200/-. The difference between

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

gains which arose on the sale of the said lands was wrongly offered in the original return in as much as the same was exempt from tax being agricultural lands and hence excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' as per the provisions of s. 2 (14)(iii) of the Act. 7.2.1. The prime issues for consideration before

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU vs. M/S. BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

10 of 18 also claimed the whole cost. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is set aside and that of the AO is restored.” Against the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal, the assessee filed appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court agreed with the reasoning of the Tribunal and held

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

section 2(14) and consequently it is a capital asset. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:- “The word 'capital asset' means property of any kind held by the assessee which does not necessarily be confined to an immovable property. Similarly, when the word 'transfer' in relation

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

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

10 of 17 16. On a plain reading of Section 54W of the said Act, the transfer of a long term asset, which would include a residential house, would be chargeable to income tax as a capital gain, except in circumstances specified in the said section. 17. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

gains which arose on the sale of the said lands was wrongly offered in the original return in as much as the same was exempt from tax being agricultural lands and hence excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' as per the provisions of s. 2 (14)(iii) of the Act. Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore Page

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

capital gains, then addition as income from other sources and income from other sources is also accepted, therefore, the question of law framed in this regard namely, substantial questions of law No.3, 4, 5 and 8 do not arise for consideration in this appeal, as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has passed the order 'on the aforesaid Remand Report

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

10 of 27 13. With regard to the legal issue that the AO ought to have assumed jurisdiction u/s.153A and not u/s.153C, the ld AR submitted that the AO in his order has admitted that there was a search in the residence of the assessee i.e., M/s.R.Muniraju (HUF) and that when the assessee is searched the assessment should have been

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

26. Grounds No.17 to 22 raised by the Assessee reads as follows: 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