LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Capital Gains (LTCG) which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale. The beneficiary (an individual) holds

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Capital Gains (LTCG) which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale. The beneficiary (an individual) holds

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Capital Gains (LTCG) which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale. The beneficiary (an individual) holds

DCIT vs. M/S MINITECHS AEROTOOLS PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2007-08

133A of the Act conducted in the Page 7 of 12 case of M/s. VBDPL, the entity which developed the property. In the course of such survey, the Revenue came to know about the joint development agreement between the assessee and VBDPL and the fact that capital gain on transfer of the property by the assessee had not been offered

MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

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

capital gains tax under Section 45 of the Act could not be levied for this Assessment Year.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "2(47)(v)", "53A", "45", "234A", "234B", "234C", "133A

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Capital Gains’ being income in respect of plots sold at Singapore Layout.’ 11.2 A survey action under section 133A of the Act was carried

C. JAGANNATH HUF,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 148 on 28.12.2012. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the assessees filed their return of income on 19.06.2013 declaring ‘Nil’ income. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28.03.2014 whereby long term capital gain arising from JDA was assessed to tax after allowing exemption u/s 54F. The AO adopted the deemed full value consideration

CHENNAKESHAVA MURTHY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 148 on 28.12.2012. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the assessees filed their return of income on 19.06.2013 declaring ‘Nil’ income. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28.03.2014 whereby long term capital gain arising from JDA was assessed to tax after allowing exemption u/s 54F. The AO adopted the deemed full value consideration

ASST.C.I.T.,MANGALORE vs. M/S SHANKAR VITTAL MOTOR CO. LTD.,, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry

133A of the IT Act, conducted in the business premises of assessee on 10-12-2012, by DDIT 3 ITA No.35(Bang)/2015 (Inv.) thereafter the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee has filed one more revised return declaring a long term capital loss of Rs.2

T.D.SATYAN vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

133A of the Act as well as the notice u/s 148 was the income on sale of land by the assessee. Therefore, this cannot be a case of lack of enquiry when there is enough investigation and enquiry conducted by the AO. The issue was examined by the AO during the survey proceedings and applied his mind while issuing

T.D.RAJAN vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

133A of the Act as well as the notice u/s 148 was the income on sale of land by the assessee. Therefore, this cannot be a case of lack of enquiry when there is enough investigation and enquiry conducted by the AO. The issue was examined by the AO during the survey proceedings and applied his mind while issuing

SMT.KONDAMMA ,BANGALORE ` vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Kondamma, No. 122/2, 6Th Main, The Income Tax Opp Srs Printer, Officer, Kammagondanhalli, Vs. Ward – 6 (2) (4), Jalahalli West, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 015. Pan: Atypk2334A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2019

133A had been conducted. In the computation of capital gains, the appellant had deducted the cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement of the land and arrived at the capital gains of Rs.68,36,980/-. As noted by the AO, this admission of her liability to pay tax on capital gains dated 19/06/2015 was much after the alleged investment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. B.M. JAYESHANKAR, BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

133A dated 04.12.2015 as a part of the search action in the case of the assessee, in the premises of M/s BSR Associates a sheet (Exhibit 1) was accessed from the electronic data in relation to RMZ group. M/s. BSR was the auditor for the RMZ group companies, the sheet showed the sale consideration of the transaction discussed ITA No.479/Bang/2020

SRI. K. RAJANNA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.928/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sri K. Rajanna, Hoovadigara Beedhi, Hosuru Bagilu, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Dist. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.9.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore Dt.24.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 2.4.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.13,43,590 From Business & Long Term Capital Gains (‘Ltcg’). The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act'). The Assessing Officer Observed That On Verification Of The Return Of Income, It Was Seen That The Assessee Was In Receipt Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.3,38,00,000 From Sale Of 12 Flats Received From The Developer Consequent To A Joint Development Agreement (‘Jda’)

Capital Gains (‘LTCG’). The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The Assessing Officer observed that on verification of the return of income, it was seen that the assessee was in receipt of sale consideration of Rs.3,38,00,000 from sale of 12 flats received from the developer consequent

M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

Capital Gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Considering the facts of the case, the assessee was bound to disclose the transactions of transfer and the profits arising from such transfers in AY 2005-06, as the transfers had taken place in FY 2004-05. But the assessee

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either material facts necessary for his assessment of that year. Both these conditions were condition precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either material facts necessary for his assessment of that year. Both these conditions were condition precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either material facts necessary for his assessment of that year. Both these conditions were condition precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section