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

3,89,646/- was raised. 5. Against the intimation order, the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act which came to be rejected by the CPC vide order dated 14th March 2021. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. 6.1 Before

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

13 of 33 time of offering the capital gain on the JDA to tax. As the assessment order for the AY 2007-08, the cost which was allowed to claim by the assessee was Rs.1,67,28,000/- for 3,64,336 sq.ft. of land which works out to be Rs.45.91/ sq.ft. The ld.CIT(A) was of the view that

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

13 of 33 time of offering the capital gain on the JDA to tax. As the assessment order for the AY 2007-08, the cost which was allowed to claim by the assessee was Rs.1,67,28,000/- for 3,64,336 sq.ft. of land which works out to be Rs.45.91/ sq.ft. The ld.CIT(A) was of the view that

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

3 of 34\nLandowners and Developers share in the Land in the Project as\nPer JDA\nParticulars\nCommercial\nResidential\nTotal Area\nLand Share\n(Sq. Ft)\n77,627\n14,630\n92,257\nDevelopers\nShare (Sq. Ft)\n77,627\n1,94,368\n1,94,368\nTotal in Sq.\nFt\n77,627\n2,08,998\n2,86,625\nLandowners and Developers share

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

13,02,430 [B] 32,64,99,962\n43,25,290\n43,25,290\n17,49,200\n17,49,200\n40,000\n40,000\nSurvey charges\nEvaluation and speculation of JD\nJD Agreement\nDesign and inspection\n11,251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share

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

13,02,430 [B]\n32,64,99,962\nExpenditure in relation to transfer :\nBetterment fee - Residential uinits\nFees paid for change of land use\nPartition Deed\n43,25,290\n17,49,200\n40,000\n43,25,290\n17,49,200\n40,000\nSurvey charges\nEvaluation and speculation of JD\nJD Agreement\nDesign and inspection

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

3) has to be quashed, thus ordered accordingly. The\nground raised by the Assessee is accordingly allowed\".\n14. In this appeal, we are required to examine whether any substantial\nquestion of law arises for our consideration.\n15. Having regard to the findings returned by the Tribunal, which are\nfindings of fact, in our view, no substantial question of law arises

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

13 of 27 On perusal of the above, it is important to note that the First and Second Proviso of section 143(3) of the Act shall not be applicable in cases where, a Trust is covered by the First Proviso to section 2(15): of the. Act. Therefore, it is important to view and analyse the provisions of section

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

3 [constructed, one residential house in India], then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— (i) if the amount of the capital gain is greater than

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

13,600/-)\n23,05,21,200\n22-03-\n2007\nDate of purchase of land cost of\nacquisition\n8,45,28,050\n13,87,62,810\nIndexed cost of acquisition 852 / 519\n2,69,16,693\nCost of improvement\n2,58,85,277\nF.Y.2011-12\nRs.2,38,49,698/- X 10,31,416\n852/785\nF.Y.2012-13-Rs.10,31,416/- Nil\nLong Term Capital Gain

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

3) of the Act and the department treated the gain under similar facts as long term capital gain. Therefore, in view of the principle of consistency also the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. So far as the last issue as to the taxation of income from flat instead of plant and machinery the CIT(A) held

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

3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992); 5.1 As seen from the above provisions the capital asset has been defined u/s 2(14) of the Act and similarly Section 2(47) of the Act defines the transfer in relation to a capital asset. Section 45 of the Act deals with the profits

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

3,28,500 2007-08 29.7.2010 9,52,480 5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain

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

3,28,500 2007-08 29.7.2010 9,52,480 5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain

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

3,28,500 2007-08 29.7.2010 9,52,480 5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain

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

3,28,500 2007-08 29.7.2010 9,52,480 5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain

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

3,28,500 2007-08 29.7.2010 9,52,480 5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain