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

11,620/- The case was selected for scrutiny to examine capital gains deduction claimed. During the scrutiny, the AO observed that the assessee has sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.33,81,000/- declaring a long term capital gain of Rs.28,81,917/- after claiming index cost of acquisition of Rs.4,99,083/- and he claimed deduction under section

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

gains in accordance with section 70 of the Act. Consequently, the computation of gross total income as returned by the assessee was in accordance with law. Once the gross total income is restored to the figure declared in the return, the deduction under section 80G of the Act must also be computed with reference to such income. The restriction applied

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

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 is a long-term capital gain or a short-term capital

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

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 is a long-term capital gain or a short-term capital

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

Section 53 of the\nTP Act in the context of capital gains under the Income\nTax Act, it has been held thus:\nITA Nos.775 & 954/Bang/2024\nSri Alagappa Muthiah (HUF), Bangalore\nITA Nos.776 & 955/Bang/2024\nSri Alagappa Annamalai (HUF), Bangalore\nPage 28 of 34\n“11

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

Section 53 of the\nTP Act in the context of capital gains under the Income\nTax Act, it has been held thus:\n“11

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

Section 53 of the\nTP Act in the context of capital gains under the Income\nTax Act, it has been held thus:\n"11

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

11. In respect of the second issue whether the gain arose to the assessee on sale of flats would be long term capital gain or short term capital gain, we observe that the assessee has sold flats, in which land component is also embodied. Undisputed facts are that assessee has acquired the land somewhere 8 Ramesh Narayana Reddy

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

11,81,757/- as against the loss reported by the assessee by making the addition of capital gains on the conversion of partnership firm M/s. Perpetual Investments into the assessee company. The assessee challenged the above said order of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that there was no seizure of any incriminating materials at the time

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

Section 71(2) of the Act, the assessee has the discretion to decide whether to set off business losses against capital gains. The assessee consciously exercised this option by not setting off the business loss against capital gains in its original return of income. The AR further submitted that the CPC’s adjustment violated principles of natural justice

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

capital gain the assessee decided to buy a site and construct a house under the provisions of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee purchased a site developed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) from the site allotee Shri. Ravikumar N and others at Arkavathi Layout, SiteNo. 196 and 197 formed by the Bangalore Development Authority

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

capital gains in purchase/construction of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of section 54 of the Act. The relevant paragraph are reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience :- “11

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains in purchase/construction of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of section 54 of the Act. The relevant paragraph are reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience :- “11

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

section 10 (38) of the Act of ₹ 558,469/– which is not in dispute that all. In the profit and loss account submitted by the assessee the total short-term capital gain as per note No. 11

PIONEER INDEPENDENT TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

capital gain on transfer of units of equity-oriented funds is as per Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act and, therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Respondent under Section 263 is bad in law and on facts. 10. That, without prejudice to the above and in any event, by specifically directing the Assessing Officer to revise

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Gain earned from\nSale of Land and from Sale\nOf shares as discussed para 4\nOf the assessment order i.e.,\nAmount credited to Capital\nReserve (12,11,12,036-45,05,000) -\nRs.11,66,07,036\nRs.12,03,89,532\nDeemed Income as per Section

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

capital gain computation. The ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 4 of 23 CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2007-08 by upholding the addition made towards undisclosed profits from sale of mutual funds. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had raised a legal contention that the AO has assumed jurisdiction u/s. 153C without

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

capital gain computation. The ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 4 of 23 CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2007-08 by upholding the addition made towards undisclosed profits from sale of mutual funds. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had raised a legal contention that the AO has assumed jurisdiction u/s. 153C without

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

capital gain computation. The ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 4 of 23 CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2007-08 by upholding the addition made towards undisclosed profits from sale of mutual funds. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had raised a legal contention that the AO has assumed jurisdiction u/s. 153C without