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 accounts scheme, accordingly deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs.28,81,917/- was disallowed and added back

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 gains shall be taxable. However, in paragraph 5.1 of the order, the Ld CIT(A) has held that the issue relating to denial of exemption u/s 10(38) in the hands of the assessee is academic in nature, since he has held that the income of the assessee is exempt u/s 10(23FB) of the Act. 13. The assessee

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

gains arising on transfer of original asset. Thus, the appeal of the assessee on this issue is allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly. 8. The second issue concerns itself with the allowability of interest paid on housing loan amounting to Rs.18,38,292/- towards cost of apartment. The AO observed that the assessee has already claimed deduction under section

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 of 40 ledger account and Profit & Loss account submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, it was found by the AO that only scrap sale to the extent of Rs.31,45,974 out of total scrap sale of Rs.57,22,227 was credited in the ledger account as scrap sale and the balance was not offered for taxation

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

10(3)/56 if so, whether they were taxable under the aforesaid provisions instead of summarily rejecting it and proceeding to tax it as long term capital gain on the basis that the assessee has transferred the goodwill. He seems to have lost sight of the fact that it was the goodwill of ABB Group which was common both

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

38,200/- has been shown as Goodwill in the books of the Assessee and also in the capital account of the Assessee. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dynamic Enterprises, 359 ITR 83 (Kar). The CIT(A) however placed reliance on the decision

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

capital gain of Rs. 1,53,73,386/- under section 10(38) of the Act, including the capital gain of Rs. 10

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 in view of section 2(14) read with sections 45 and 48 of the Act?" 7.3.5. After taking into account the submissions of the either of the party and also the perusal of the orders of the authorities below, the Hon'ble Court had held as under: "5. We find from the record that the Appellate Commissioner as well

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:

38,20,000/- during the Assessment Year 2015-16 and the same was offered to tax in AY 2015-16. 5. The Assessing officer did not accept the above submission of the Assessee for the reason that as per section 45, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains and claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the I.T.Act. It is undisputed that the resultant gains from

POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain in the sale of shares of sun star Realty Limited as per Report of Investigation wing. 5. Assessee categorically submitted that she has not claimed any benefit from section 10 (38

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

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

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

section 50B, no indexation benefit is available on cost of acquisition, i.e., net worth. 28. Before and after effecting slump sale, the Assessee entered into some ancillary transactions which had tax implications. The issue raised in Grd.No.18 to 20 of the modified grounds emanate from those ancillary transactions. IT(TP) A No. 270/Bang/2021 Tyco Fire and Security India Pvt.Ltd

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

10. That the Second Party Developer has paid a total sum of Rs30,00,000/7 (Rupees Thirty Lakh Only) to the First Party Owners in the following manner a) A Sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) by way of Cheque bearing No.790293, Dated 17-12- 2003, drawn on ING VYSYA Bank, Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore as refundable deposit

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

10 ITA No.293/Bang/2020. Dr.Sheela Puttabuddi. payment for and behalf of the assessee and the stamp duty also has been paid by him which clearly establish the fact that the advance paid by the assessee to Sri. B. Suresh was with an intention to reinvest the proceeds of capital gains in acquiring a new property and consequently the conditions as specified

TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

10 of 20 capital accounts of the partners. The computation of the gain is not disputed by the lower authorities, though the assessee has not produced any supporting document to show how the original cost of the land was arrived at. The important fact to be noted here is that, neither the stock in trade (land) is reflecting the revalued

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains in view of section 2(14) read with sections 45 and 48 of the Act?" 7.3.5. After taking into account the submissions of the either of the party and also the perusal of the orders of the authorities below, the Hon'ble Court had held as under: "5. We find from the record that the Appellate Commissioner as well