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

capital gain arising out\nof the impugned property vide JDA dated 10.02.2011 to be taxed in\nthe assessment year 2018-19 only. Ordered accordingly.\n8.\nIn the result, both the appeals of the assessees in ITA\nNos.775 & 776/Bang/2024 are allowed.\n9. Now we will take up revenue's appeals in ITA Nos.954 &\n955/Bang/2024 for the AY 2017-18. The grounds

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

capital gain arising out\nof the impugned property vide JDA dated 10.02.2011 to be taxed in\nthe assessment year 2018-19 only. Ordered accordingly.\n8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees in ITA\nNos.775 & 776/Bang/2024 are allowed.\n9. Now we will take up revenue's appeals in ITA Nos.954 &\n955/Bang/2024 for the AY 2017-18. The grounds

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 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 26. The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G.Patel (supra) is a case where the deed of reconstitution specifically referred to release of rights of the outgoing partners in the assets of the partnership and further

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the assessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 54F of the Act, if capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, (i) within a period of one year before or (ii) two years after the date on which the transfer took place (a) purchased

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the asessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the asessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the asessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the asessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the asessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the asessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 45 of 78 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

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 45 of 78 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

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

Capital Gain” and the buyer has deducted TDS on the purchase of the property. Buyer has also furnished information as sought by the AO under section 133

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

gain shown by the assessee. Here, we feel pertinent to refer the order of the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Indravadan Jain HUF in ITA No. 4861/Mum/2014. In the said case the assessee Indravadan Jain HUF . Page 10 of 19 purchased share of M/s Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd in the year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S L K TRUST , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2008-09 The Dcit, Vs. M/S. L. K. Trust, Circle – 5(2)(1), #9, Seshadri Road, Bangalore – 560 009. Bangalore. Pan: Aaatl 0522 A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri. V. Sridhar, Ca Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.03.2017 Of Cit(A)-5, Bangalore, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust. It Owned Residential Land Measuring About 11 Acres & 20 Guntas Situated In Nagashettyhally, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Property’). The Assessee Together With One M/S. Kanyakumari Builders Pvt. Ltd., As Confirming Party No.1 & M/S. Khoday India Ltd., As Confirming Party No.2, Sold The Property For A Sale Consideration Of Rs.140 Crores By A Sale Deed Dated 31.01.2007 To M/S. Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd. In The Return Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year 2007-08, The Assessee Declared Long Term Capital Gain On Sale Of The Property Only To The Extent Of 34% & Claimed That In Respect Of 66% Of The Property Sold, Capital Gain Page 2 Of 14 Cannot Be Regarded As Having Accrued To The Assessee. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings For Assessment Year 2007-08, The Assessee Submitted A Letter Dated 31.03.2008 In Which The Assessee Gave The Reasons As To Why Only 34% Of The Capital Gain Is Declared In The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2007-08. The Same Reads As Follows: Page 3 Of 14 The Ao Passed An Order Of Assessment On 31.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Accepting Long Term Capital Gain To The Extent Of 34% Declared By The Assessee.

section 147 of the Act were as follows: “The assessee, M/s L. K. Trust with PAN AAATL0522A and status AOP(Trust), had filed a return of income on 30.9.2008 and it was processed u/s 143(1) on 12/3/10. Subsequently, the assessment-u/s 143(3) was completed on 15.12.2010. The assessee, M/s L.K. Trust was the owner of the residential

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

capital gains has to be computed in accordance with section 45 to 50 of the Act. Accordingly, we allow this ground raised by assessee. Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 5. Ground no. 2 (2.1 to 2.5 ) is in respect of the disallowance of hedging losses u/s. 37 of the Act by holding it to be notional