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

3 years from the date of transfer of the capital asset. There is no requirement that the construction agreement should also be within the period set out in Sec.54F(4) of the Act. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in the decision rendered in the case of Sambandam Udaykumar 251 CTR 317, had taken a view that under the provisions

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

3. There are couple of issues raised in this appeal. Rest of the grounds raised in the appeal are either consequential or general in nature. Accordingly, they are dismissed as general or consequential. The issues, which need to be adjudicated in this appeal are (0 if the capital gains earned by the assessee are Page

SMT.ANUPAMA NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

capital gain of Rs.87,13,115 claimed under Section 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer after conducting the enquiry and verification of the status of the new asset disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 54 of the Act. As per the 3

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

3 of 40 to the agreement of sale executed between the appellant and IDEB and consequently there was no transfer in the relevant assessment year to subject the capital gains if any for taxation in the relevant year. 11. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the agreement to sell executed between the appellant and IDEB

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

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

3,09,000 10. The AO computed long term capital gain of Rs.46,30,45,000 by reducing from the full value of consideration received on transfer of RS.53,10,00,000 the net value of fixed assets of RS.68,02,000 and current assets of RS.6,11,53,000. The entire sum of Rs.33,21,00,000 received towards

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

Capital Gains at Rs. Page 5 of 13 3,67,67,836 and after adjusting current years business expenses of Rs. 1,08,54,687 (including depreciation as per the I.T. Act) under the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Set off provision under section

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

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

13. One of the devices used by assessee to evade tax on capital gain was to convert an asset held individually into asset of the firm in which the individual as a partner. A partner can bring asset owned by him as his capital contribution. The intention to treat own property as property of the firm can be inferred even

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

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

3 of 17 as 31.08.2014 and the date of sale being less than 36 months, the AO construed the capital gain on sale of property as a short term capital gain. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act by investing the capital gain in acquisition of another property. Since the gain in question was construed

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

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. C. NARASIMHAIAH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 143(3) by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(4), Bangalore is opposed to Law and Facts and Circumstances of the case. Hence, the Assessee has come up with this appeal. 2. The moot question to be decided and answered in this appeal 4 ITA No.206(B)/12 & C.O. No.4(B)2015 - whether gains arisen is "Long

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

3,12,13,249) was brought to tax and the Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.14,90,260/-. The Ld.AO was of the opinion that the property acquired by assessee on 10.02.2011 was before the transfer of original asset and accordingly the claim u/s. 54F was denied. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT

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 3 (31) of the Generdl Clauses Act defining local authority." 8.3.5. At this juncture, we would like to point out that there are two views on the issue, one in favour of the assessee as held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court [in Murali Lodge's case] and other against the assessee as ruled