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

10 of 24 of the Act. On the above facts, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held as follows:- “The s. 54(1) declares that when the assessee sells any long- term capital asset, the assessee should purchase the building within one year before the transfer or within two years after the transfer by investing capital gains. In which event

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

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

10.-07.2018) under section 139(1) of the Act. Since the assessee has not purchased or constructed a new house during the year under consideration nor has deposited the untilised sale consideration in bank account Page 3 of 16 under the capital gain

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

10. The Appellant craves for leave to add, to delete from or amend the grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income belatedly on 29th March, 2013 under section 139(4), declaring total income of Rs. 8,32,830/-. The return of income was selected for framing scrutiny assessment

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

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

3. The issue raised by the assessee is that the CPC erred in adjusting the STT suffered short term capital loss for Rs. 16,28,978/- on sale of shares and mutual against the Non STT short capital gains from ITA No.2194 & 2195/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 16 sale of units of mutual fund and thereby reducing the eligible deduction under

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

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

gain accrued. ITA No.486 /Bang/2019 CO No.50/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 46 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the assessee, being a VCF, required to adhere to the provisions of sec. 10(23FB) of the Act in order to become eligible

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

3 of 17 as 31.08.2014 and the date of sale being less than 36 months, the AO construed the capital gain on sale of property as a short term capital gain. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act by investing the capital gain in acquisition of another property. Since the gain in question was construed

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

10. The share or interest of a partner in the partnership and its assets would be property and, therefore, a capital asset within the meaning of the aforesaid definition. To this extent, there can be no doubt. 11. The question is as to whether it can be said that there was a transfer of capital asset by the retiring partner

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

capital gains on JDA to tax. In the instant case, the cost which was allowed to be claimed by the assessee as per assessment order dated 10/02/20215was Rs.1,67,28,000/- for an area of 3,64,336 sq. ft. thus cost per sq ft. being Rs.45.91 sq. ft. The assessee is eligible to claim the per sq.ft. rate. • However

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

capital gains on JDA to tax. In the instant case, the cost which was allowed to be claimed by the assessee as per assessment order dated 10/02/20215was Rs.1,67,28,000/- for an area of 3,64,336 sq. ft. thus cost per sq ft. being Rs.45.91 sq. ft. The assessee is eligible to claim the per sq.ft. rate. • However

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 (LTCG). That the sale of building was taxable as short term capital gain (STCG

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

10,94,09,164 5,96,29,446 Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Land 6,48,41,697 12,11,12,036 17,08,91,754 Less : Long Term Capital loss on Sale Shares 1,52,25,759 45,05,000 1,52,25,759 Net Long Term Capital Gain

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

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. C. NARASIMHAIAH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

capital gains. 8. The authorities blow ought to have considered the case of the respondent based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the cross objections filed y the respondent be allowed. 10. An opportunity of personal hearing e granted to the cross objector

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

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax arising out of such sales within the meaning of the definition of the term “capital asset”. Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain and claimed that it was agricultural land though it was converted into non-agricultural residential purpose, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143