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

12 of 24 exemption is claimed u/s.54F in construction of the property. The requirement of the section is that the capital gain

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

Capital Gains Accounts Scheme, 1988 which has been notified for the purposes of availing exemption u/s 54F(4) and other similar provisions of the Act and the salient features of the said scheme reads as under: "Deposits how to be made. Page 10 of 16 3. A deposit or deposits may be made under the provisions of section

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 chargeable to tax so far as such interest on housing loan on acquisition of capital asset is not claimed as deduction u/s 24(b) by the assessee, and that is what the assessee is also now contending, albeit without prejudice. Thus, the AO is required to verify whether or not interest on housing loan on the acquisition of capital

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

capital gain and assessee was entitled to benefit of section 80T irrespective of the fact that the assessee did not get possession of the fiat in question at the time of allotment and it was constructed later on." Page 12

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 ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 11 of 33 of Rs.17,96,704/- (Rs.4,92,69,179 – 4,74,72,475) was added back to the income of the assessee and brought to tax. 3.6 With regard to the Notional rent on residential property owned

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 ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 11 of 33 of Rs.17,96,704/- (Rs.4,92,69,179 – 4,74,72,475) was added back to the income of the assessee and brought to tax. 3.6 With regard to the Notional rent on residential property owned

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

capital gains, it is submitted that the AO should have excluded the income derived by way of Rs.3,30,29,479 which has been offered and requires to be deleted from the total income. Page 12 of 40 20. Further, it is submitted that the AO should have allowed the claim for fencing. It was an undisputed fact that

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

12. A lot of emphasis has been laid by the learned CIT(A) on the words "under similar computation made" as used in sub-section (2). He has opined that there are two different categories of the transactions resulting into short-term capital gain

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

12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 [D]\n14,60,95,303\n54,28,86,124\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy

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

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

12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 | [D] | 54,28,86,124\n14,60,95,303\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy

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

12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 [D]\n14,60,95,303\n54,28,86,124\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy

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

section 45 of the Act. Page 6 of 23 12. A look at how formation and dissolution of partnership was used as a device to evade tax on capital gains

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

12 of 45 financials. He also held that such gain was long term capital gain because the business unit being sold was very old. The AO was of the view that the case of the Assessee fits most suitably with the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works 264 ITR 142 (Karn). In the aforesaid decision

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 50 as Short Term Capital Gains. The observations of the CIT(Appeals) contrary to the aforesaid provisions are unsustainable and are hereby vacated. The ld. counsel for the Page 12

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

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

Capital gains on buy back of shares. ITA Nos. 1783 and 1784/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 10 11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that in the facts of the present case, section 46A is applicable and therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A). 12

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

Capital gains on buy back of shares. ITA Nos. 1783 and 1784/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 10 11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that in the facts of the present case, section 46A is applicable and therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A). 12

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:

Section 45(1). Merely because the agreement provides for payment of the balance of consideration upon the happening of certain events, it cannot be said that the income has not accrued in the year of transfer. 9. In view of the above reasoning we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration