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

5 of 24 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as follows:- “2. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had failed to fulfil the requisite conditions stipulated u/s. 54F for claiming deduction under the said

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

5. The heads of income is enumerated u/s 14. There are five heads of income, namely income from Salaries, Income from House Property , Profits and Gains of A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek Business of Profession, Capital Gains, and lastly Income from other sources. Thus, the income is to be brought to income-tax under these five heads

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

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

5,72,000/-. Hence cost of acquisition has been restricted to Rs. 80,34,964/. The income from Capital Gains is recomputed at Rs.83,37,613/-. However in the revised return of income dated 23.09.2015, the assessee has declared a capital gain of Rs.41,08,845/- resulting in short computation of Rs.42,28,768/-. Hence, the same was added

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

5. The learned Commissioner (A) erred in upholding the impugned addition of Rs.25,76,253/- towards alleged undisclosed scrap sale. 6. The learned Commissioner (A)ought to have refrained from upholding the computation of capital gains on the transfer of property to M/s.Gopalan Enterprises. 7. On the facts the learned Commissioner (A) ought to have allowed the cost of purchase

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

5 of 16 7. However, the learned CIT(A) examined the facts of the case, the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act, and the submissions of the appellant. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had earned long term capital gains taxable

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

11, that has been judicially noted and approved. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that transfer of leasehold land along with the buildings on it leads to short-term capital gains u/s 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that Sec 50 of the I.T.Act,1961 is applicable in the case

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

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 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 and any expenditure wholly

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

11,61,800/-)” 4. Accordingly the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs.11,61,800/- as chargeable capital gains. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Mohanbhai

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

5\n(SC)] while considering the provision of 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

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

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

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

5\n(SC)] while considering the provision of 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

5\n(SC)] while considering the provision of Section 53 of the\nTP Act in the context of capital gains under the Income\nTax Act, it has been held thus:\n"11

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

5 of 45 between various assets. In case of a slump sale, an undertaking is transferred including depreciable and non-depreciable assets and it is not possible to allocate slump price to depreciable assets and therefore, the same cannot be taxed u/s. 41 (2). Taxing gain on slump sale as capital gain is also not possible because the Apex Court

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

11 exemption/deduction, the Assessee has to deposit the capital gain in a specified account. As per proviso to section 54B(2), if the amount deposited in the capital gains account is not utilised wholly or partially for purchase of new asset within the period specified in sub-section (1) i.e., within a period of two year after the date

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

capitation fees in cash under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned Pr.CIT, Bangalore ought to have appreciated that there the notation "C.PD" found in certain documents during the course of search denoted "concession provided" and not "cash paid" under the facts and 'in the circumstances of the appellant's case. The learned

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

5. Aug. 28, 2009 Cheque No.282992 in favour of 13,00,000:00 B..S.Dwarakanath, drawn on the Karnataka Bank Ltd., Jayanagar, 4th Block Branch, Bangalore. 6. Aug. 28, 2009 Cheque No.423295 in favour of 2,00,000:00 B.S.Dwarakanath drawn on the South India Bank, Jayanagar, 4th Block Branch, Bangalore 7. Aug. 28, 2009 Cheque No.282991 in favour

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