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

140 per\nsft which is the value prescribed for properties in Bangalore Rural\nand not on Bellary Road.\n13. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials\navailable on record. As per section 55 of the Act as applicable to\nthe assessment year under consideration, which provides that for\nthe computation of capital gains

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

capital gains taxation, it is exempt under sec.47(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. The case of the Revenue is that a company cannot make a gift and also seen if it is treated as a gift, it is not eligible for exemption provided under sec.47(iii), as correct provision of law applies to the case of the assessee

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

Section 48 as a result of\nthe transfer of the capital asset.\n25. This Court in E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1955) 1 SCR\n313 at 343 held:\n“It is clear therefore that income may accrue to an assessee\nwithout the actual receipt of the same. If the assessee\nacquires a right to receive the income, the income

SHRI PRABHUKUMAR AIYAPPA KULLATIRA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

140/-. The AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2017 and made addition of Rs.2,48,23,210/- as long term capital gains, which is the subject matter of present appeal. While making the above addition, AO observed as under:- "16. It is also relevant to note that in the present context assessee

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

capital gain and thefore the machinery provisions fail and therefore the charge itself fails. 23. Consequently, the relevant grounds of appeal 2 to 3 of the assessee are dismissed. 24. Ground Nos.4 and 5 can be decided together as they arise under identical facts and circumstances. We have already seen that assessee received a sum of Rs.2

SMT.UMA NARENDRA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

gain arises from transfer of Page 11 of 14 a capital so as to attract sections 45 & 48 of the Income-tax Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are extracted hereunder:- “23. A reading of the JDA in the present case would show that the owner continues to be the owner throughout the agreement

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

gain arises from transfer of a capital so as to attract sections 45 & 48 of the Income-tax Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are extracted hereunder:- “23. A reading of the JDA in the present case would show that the owner continues to be the owner throughout the agreement, and has at no stage purported

SRI. TEJAS,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

gain arises from transfer of a capital so as to attract sections 45 & 48 of the Income-tax Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are extracted hereunder:- “23. A reading of the JDA in the present case would show that the owner continues to be the owner throughout the agreement, and has at no stage purported

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.

capital gain on sale of the property. The reasons recorded for initiating proceedings under 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

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

gain directly on the sale of flats in the respective\n assessment year (in A.Y. 2013-14 and in subsequent years).\n9.\nThe AO was of the view that on the date of JDA, the land\nproperty was transferred to builder/developer for construction which\namount to transfer of capital assets as per the provision of section

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

gain directly on the sale of flats in the respective\n assessment year (in A.Y. 2013-14 and in subsequent years).\n\n9. The AO was of the view that on the date of JDA, the land\nproperty was transferred to builder/developer for construction which\namount to transfer of capital assets as per the provision of section

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

capital gain then none of the conditions as prescribed under clause (a) & (b) are satisfied so as to bring the case of the assessee in the mischief of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while considering the definition

MR.T THOMAS RAMAPURAM ,KODAGU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , MADIKERE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazmr. T Thomas Ramapuram, Chikkannahalli Estate, Siddapur, Kodagu. . Appellate Pan – Agepr 7743P. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Satya Sai Rath, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : -11-2018 O R D E R

140/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 21/12/2010 accepting the returned income. 2.2 The CIT, Mysore initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by issue of show cause notice dated 16/11/2012 as he was of the view that

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

140 taxmann.com 1/196 ITD 24 (Mum. - Trib.) 12. Thus, in view of the submissions made above, it is humbly submitted that if there is no exempt income, naturally, there cannot be any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act because no expenditure has been incurred on any exempt income during the year. Further, the reliance placed by the learned

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

140 2007-08 19,60,000 2,40,92,684 8.2 Assessee has explained the above discrepancy as under: The above expenditures might have been wrongly debited to the partner's drawings account instead of the industrial shed account during the respective financial year which is prior to the financial year 2010-11. Since the issues were more than

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

capital\nasset.\n3.22 The ld. A.R. further submitted that, if at all any substantive /\nprotective assessment is to be undertaken, at best it can be\nundertaken in the hands of SPR Developers. SPR Developers is the\nentity which entered into arrangements with various persons of the\nSri M Thimmegowda group, including Sri T Nadakrishna. for\naggregating lands for onward development

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE vs. NADAKRISHNA THIMMAIAH, BANGALORE

capital\nasset.\n3.22 The ld. A.R. further submitted that, if at all any substantive /\nprotective assessment is to be undertaken, at best it can be\nundertaken in the hands of SPR Developers. SPR Developers is the\nentity which entered into arrangements with various persons of the\nSri M Thimmegowda group, including Sri T Nadakrishna. for\naggregating lands for onward development

MICHEAL GOWDA LAZAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Ksp No.48/Bang/2025 (In Ita No.1163/Bang/2025) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Micheal Gowda Lazar, Vs. Ito, No.1401, Near Begur Hospital, Begur Road, Ward – 4(3)(4), Begur, Bangalore. Bangalore – 5565 600. Pan : Acepl 0671 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. N. Madhavan, Redtd. Addl. Commissioner. Revenue By : Shri. Swaroop Mannava, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

section 54F of the Act. 4. Further, it was noticed that the assessee has sold original assets on 16.12.2010 bearing survey No.66/3 at Kammanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and site No.1173, V.P. Katha No.774/B situated at Begur Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, for a total consideration of Rs.35,36,140/-. The assessee in the computation of Income