GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains are fulfilled. 6. It should have been appreciated that only the unutilized amount has to be invested in a special account u/s 54(2) and when there is such utilization before the date of filing u/s 139, which includes 139(4), the requirement of deposit in special account does not arise. 7. The NFAC ought to have appreciated

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

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

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

142 (Karn). In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court took the view that trademark, trade name etc., are indistinguishable, inseparable and part of goodwill. He held that the cost of acquisition was nil and therefore brought the entire sum earmarked for technical how by the purchaser of the transportation business/undertaking in his books as long term capital

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

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain on purchase by company of its own shares or other specified securities. In this regard, he submitted that section 46A is not a charging section and charging section is section 45 and therefore section 47(iv) is applicable in the present case. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain on purchase by company of its own shares or other specified securities. In this regard, he submitted that section 46A is not a charging section and charging section is section 45 and therefore section 47(iv) is applicable in the present case. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

142(1) of the Act, was issued Page 4 of 17 to assessee, in response to which, representatives of assessee appeared before Ld.AO and filed various details as called for. 3. On perusal of details, Ld.AO noted that, assessee had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19/09/2013 with Nilachala Ventures Pvt.Ltd. for purchase of residential house for total consideration

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

142(1) of the I.T.Act, copies of the sale deeds executed by the assessee for purchase of original asset, copy of the sale deed when assessee sold the original asset, copy of the purchase deed with regard to investment of flat, copy of the assessment order, notice issued u/s 154 of the I.T.Act by the A.O., confirmation issued

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

142 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub- section (2A) of that section, or iii) having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143, ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 50 8. He submitted that paras 9 and 10 of the assessment

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

142 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub- section (2A) of that section, or iii) having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143, ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 50 8. He submitted that paras 9 and 10 of the assessment

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

142 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub- section (2A) of that section, or iii) having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143, ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 50 8. He submitted that paras 9 and 10 of the assessment

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

142 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub- section (2A) of that section, or iii) having made a return, fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 143, ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 12 of 50 8. He submitted that paras 9 and 10 of the assessment

SRI MAHENDRASINGH RAMSINGH JADAV,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

capital gains arose on transfer of the original property after acquiring the rights over that property by way of registration as STCGs is hereby upheld. The grounds of appeal therefore is hereby dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal to the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed four sets of paper

ANANDAKRISHNANA VAIDYANATHAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarishri Anandakrishnan Vaidyanathan, No.306, Vishal Nest, Amruthahalli, Bangalore-560 092 ….Appellant Pan Aakpv 3185H Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri K.V.Narasimhan, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit (D.R.)

capital gains arising on account of sale of shares of Rs.1 Crore under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Thesaid investment of Rs.1 Crore was factually made in two instalments of Rs.50 lacs each within the statutory period of six months from the date of sale of shares in question. The said period of six months

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

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains of Rs.59,73,467/- claimed under section 54F of IT Act. 3. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding disallowance of exemption under section 54F on the basis that the villa was registered on 21.02.2015 i.e. prior to transfer of original asset i.e. Page 2 of 16 13.11.2015 when section 54F does not bar construction within

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged