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 gain of Rs.28,81,917/- which has been claimed as deduction under section 54F(1) of the Act. Assessee has invested in the construction of residential property of his spouse Smt. N. Mahalakshmi at Plot No.283, I Block, Banashankari 6th Stage, Bangalore. Assessee filed return of income under section 139

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

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

section 54F, it is clear that the assessee is required to purchase within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place or constructed one residential house within a period of three years after the date of sale of capital asset. In the instant case, the assessee sold the capital asset

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

139(1) of the Act; 3 The Assessee has purchased only a vacant site on 24/08/2017. 4 The Assessee has not made any investment in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme as mandated under IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 4 of 16 section

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

section 139(1) of the Act of Rs.5,29,40,890/- was accepted and\nthe capital gain detail of the computation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

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

sections": [ "139(5)", "143(1)", "147", "148", "144", "50C", "2(47)", "45", "48", "53A", "56(2)(x)" ], "issues": "Whether a sale transaction, subsequently cancelled and where no consideration was passed or possession transferred, can be considered a 'transfer' for capital gains

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

Section 54F on the ground that he did not deposit the said\namount in capital gains account scheme before the due date prescribed under\nSection 139

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

139(9) and\ntherefore the return filed on 26-02-2021 was valid.\n5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the Notice Issued u/s 153C on\nthe basis of a satisfaction note alleged to have been drawn on 24-03-\n2020 on the basis of assessment proceedings in the case of searched\nassessee M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd without

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

139, section 147, section 148, section 149,\nsection 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or\nrequisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen the books of account or documents

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

139, section 147, section 148, section 149,\nsection 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or\nrequisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen the books of account or documents

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

139, section 147, section 148, section 149,\nsection 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or\nrequisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen the books of account or documents

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

139, section 147, section 148, section 149,\nsection 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing or any books of account or documents seized or\nrequisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen the books of account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

139, section 147, section 148, section 149,\nsection 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or\nrequisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A,\nthen the books of account or documents

SHANTHA ALIAS SHANTHAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

gains, sale proceeds, and refundable deposits were also found to be unsustainable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "153C", "143(2)", "132", "131", "45(5A)", "139(1)", "143(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were valid in absence of incriminating material, proper satisfaction note, and notice u/s 143(2). Also, whether the additions made on account of capital

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

139(1) on 30-09-2011 for the year under consideration, the assessee declared a business loss of Rs. 13,98,37,03/- only. 4. Subsequently, a search proceeding under section 132 of the Act was conducted at Srinivasa Trust on 06-08-2012, during which a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 05-02-2005 between the assessee (Chaitanya Properties

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU vs. ALAKANANDA PRINTERS (P) LTD, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and CO filed by the assessee in support of the Order of the CIT(A)

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain in the Assessment Year 2015-16. There was incriminating document found during the course of search in the case of Bharath Beedi Work (P) Ltd. Therefore, after recording satisfaction, notice under section 153C of the Act was issued. The JDA was found during the course of search and the assessee was a co-owner of the 7 landlords