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

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

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

10 of 34\nAO. We also note that the assessee taken possession of property\nfrom developer vide letter reference VKT/LND/591 dated 8.5.2017\nwhich is placed on record at page 146 to 150 of assessee paper\nbook-I. The ld. AO not accepted the said letter of the allocation of\npossession to assessee by alleging that there could be manipulation\nbetween

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

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

section 10(38) of the Act, including the capital gain of Rs. 10,86,720/- on account of sale of shares of M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. The AO found that . Page 3 of 19 the assessee claimed to have purchased 4000 shares of impugned company M/s Comfort Intech Ltd on 14th March 2005 in offline mode through the broker namely

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

10 of 16 evidenced by registration thereof as provided under section 17 of the Registration Act. For the purpose of attracting the provisions of section 54, it is not necessary that the assessee should become the owner of the property. Section 54 speaks of purchase. Moreover, the ownership of the property may have different connotations in different statutes. The question

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

30% now transferred and indexed cost of improvement is taken at Rs.74,53,479/-. From this, the proportionate long term capital gain on the portion of the land transferred under this 19 flats is workable and to that extent, the capital gains has to be treated as long term capital gains and the balance has to be treated as short

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

30% now transferred and indexed cost of improvement is taken at Rs.74,53,479/-. From this, the proportionate long term capital gain on the portion of the land transferred under this 19 flats is workable and to that extent, the capital gains has to be treated as long term capital gains and the balance has to be treated as short

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

30% now transferred and indexed cost of improvement is taken at Rs.74,53,479/-. From this, the proportionate long term capital gain on the portion of the land transferred under this 19 flats is workable and to that extent, the capital gains has to be treated as long term capital gains and the balance has to be treated as short

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

30% now transferred and indexed cost of improvement is taken at Rs.74,53,479/-. From this, the proportionate long term capital gain on the portion of the land transferred under this 19 flats is workable and to that extent, the capital gains has to be treated as long term capital gains and the balance has to be treated as short

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

30% now transferred and indexed cost of improvement is taken at Rs.74,53,479/-. From this, the proportionate long term capital gain on the portion of the land transferred under this 19 flats is workable and to that extent, the capital gains has to be treated as long term capital gains and the balance has to be treated as short

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

gains of Rs 40 Crore arising on Revaluation were transferred to the capital accounts of Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai only (in equal ratio), and not to other retiring partners. (v) Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai are also the Directors in the company M/s Century Real Estate ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

gains of Rs 40 Crore arising on Revaluation were transferred to the capital accounts of Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai only (in equal ratio), and not to other retiring partners. (v) Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai are also the Directors in the company M/s Century Real Estate ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

gains of Rs 40 Crore arising on Revaluation were transferred to the capital accounts of Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai only (in equal ratio), and not to other retiring partners. (v) Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai are also the Directors in the company M/s Century Real Estate ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

gains of Rs 40 Crore arising on Revaluation were transferred to the capital accounts of Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai only (in equal ratio), and not to other retiring partners. (v) Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai are also the Directors in the company M/s Century Real Estate ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

gains of Rs 40 Crore arising on Revaluation were transferred to the capital accounts of Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai only (in equal ratio), and not to other retiring partners. (v) Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai are also the Directors in the company M/s Century Real Estate ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

gains of Rs 40 Crore arising on Revaluation were transferred to the capital accounts of Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai only (in equal ratio), and not to other retiring partners. (v) Shri P. Ravindra Pai and Shri P. Ashwin Pai are also the Directors in the company M/s Century Real Estate ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

section 14A of the Act to the file of the learned CIT(A) for reconsideration. 10. The learned CIT(A), vide order dated 30-03-2024, once again decided the issue of capital gains