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

142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates calling for the details as per the said notices. The assessee submitted the details as called for. 3.1 During the course of search operations u/s.132 of the Act at the residence of the assessee, several documents among which the material related to a joint development agreement with the developer, namely

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

142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates calling for the details as per the said notices. The assessee submitted the details as called for. 3.1 During the course of search operations u/s.132 of the Act at the residence of the assessee, several documents among which the material related to a joint development agreement with the developer, namely

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

142(1) of the Act were issued along with detailed questionnaire. The assessee filed their explanations and also produced the documents called for by the AO. The AO by M/s. Atria Wind (Kadambur) Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 19 his order dated 30.03.2022 had determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.189,11,81,757/- as against

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

142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notices was issued on various dates seeking documents and information to which the assessee made part compliances. 3.1 The AO on going through the sale deed dated 15/12/2017 noticed that the assessee had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs 60,00,000/-. Further, the cost of acquisition

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

capital gain was not disclosed in the return filed\nfor Assessment Year 2013-14. To assess the income escaped assessment, the\ncase was reopened under section 148 of the Act after obtaining the\napproval/sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3,\nChennai. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on\n30.3.2019 requiring

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notices, the assessee filed his response on various dates and accordingly, the AO completed the assessment proceedings by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.54 of the Act amounting to Rs.36,64,791/- and added the same under the head Capital Gain u/s. 45 of the Act. 3.1 During the course

PIONEER INDEPENDENT TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

capital gain on transfer of units of equity-oriented funds is as per Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act and, therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Respondent under Section 263 is bad in law and on facts. 10. That, without prejudice to the above and in any event, by specifically directing the Assessing Officer to revise

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 142(1) of the Act. Final\nshow cause notice dated 07.09.2021 was issued to the\nassessee proposing to make an addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/-\non account of capital gain

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 computation sheet, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee asking for various

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

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

142(1) of the Act dated\n10.02.2023 and 14.02.2023 were issued to the assessee and notice under\nsection 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 was also issued to the assessee to file\nincome tax return and assessee filed return on 26.04.2022. Thereafter, notice\nunder section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee subsequently other\nstatutory notices were

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", "142

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

142(1) of the Act. The notice under section 129 of the Act was also issued. The AO noted that the year of incidents of capital gains

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains of Rs. 1,65,93,642/- was computed and offered to tax by the appellant based on sale consideration received as per sale deed dated 21.03.2016. 8. Thereafter, the case of the appellant was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was issued on the appellant by ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore. In response

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

SHRI VANKADARI CHINNA REDDEPPA CHETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

142(1) of the Act were issued, calling for details. In response to the notices issued, the assessee's authorized representative appeared, produced details called for and made timely written submissions. The assessment under section 143(2) of the Act was concluded vide an order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2016 by treating income from LTCG from

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

capital gain of Rs.23,18,153/- made on the scrip sale of Pearl Electric Limited on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The authorities below were not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act with respect to the purchase of shares of Mahaveer Advanced Rem for Rs.10,60,000/- on the facts and circumstances

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

Section 50-C, irrespective of the fact that I have received lesser amount, I agree to adopt guided value as sale consideration for the purpose of computing capital gains." 6.3 The AR confirmed that no application was filed for valuation of the property through DVO before any of the revenue authorities. 6.4 The departmental representative (in short DR) mentioned that

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

gain related to capital creditors, are routine, recurring matters that have been consistently accepted by the department in earlier years after due verification. 12.3 The Ld. AR further argued that the Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that the assessment proceedings under sections 143(2) and 142