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

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

142 or under section 148 for the Making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier. (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

142 or under section 148 for the Making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier. (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

142(1) were also issued on various dates along with questionnaires calling for various details to verify the claims made by the assessee in the return of income. After hearing the assessee, assessment was completed by determining total income at Rs.1750,77,68,383/-. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed appeal before

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

142(1) were also issued on various dates along with questionnaires calling for various details to verify the claims made by the assessee in the return of income. After hearing the assessee, assessment was completed by determining total income at Rs.1750,77,68,383/-. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed appeal before

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

capital gain was not disclosed in the return filed for Assessment Year 2013-14. To assess the income escaped assessment, the case was reopened under section 148 of the Act after obtaining the approval/sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Chennai. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.3.2019 requiring

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

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. 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

1,08,31,000 Furniture and Fixtures Rs. 30,34,000 Tools & Moulds Rs. 17,95,000 Vehicles Rs. 3,58,000 Technical Know-how Rs.43,17,62,000 Building nil Inventories Rs. 3,09,000 10. The AO computed long term capital gain of Rs.46,30,45,000 by reducing from the full value of consideration received on transfer

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.)

142(1) were issued. The learned Authorised Representative appeared from time to time and submitted the details. In respect of investment of Rs.50 lacs in the subsequent financial year though within the statutory period of six months as contemplated 3 under the said section. The Assessing Officer has passed assessment order making the disallowance of the claim under Section 54EC

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(1) of the Act dt.13.01.2017 for the AY's 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 was issued to the assessee on 24.01.2017 proposing to treat the long term capital gains arising out of investment in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs.16,22,06,666/- and Short term Capital gains arising out of investment in M/s. Fact

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(1) of the Act dt.13.01.2017 for the AY's 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 was issued to the assessee on 24.01.2017 proposing to treat the long term capital gains arising out of investment in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs.16,22,06,666/- and Short term Capital gains arising out of investment in M/s. Fact

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(1) of the Act dt.13.01.2017 for the AY's 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 was issued to the assessee on 24.01.2017 proposing to treat the long term capital gains arising out of investment in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs.16,22,06,666/- and Short term Capital gains arising out of investment in M/s. Fact

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(1) of the Act dt.13.01.2017 for the AY's 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 was issued to the assessee on 24.01.2017 proposing to treat the long term capital gains arising out of investment in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs.16,22,06,666/- and Short term Capital gains arising out of investment in M/s. Fact

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

capital gains assessed for the assessment year 2006-07 was misconceived and liable to be deleted. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] failed to Page 3 of 37 appreciate the consideration for the transfer of undivided interest in land upon joint development ought to have been determined based on the guideline value of the extent

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

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

142(1), the DCIT, Circle – 2(1) sought copy of account with HSBC Geneva. If the DCIT, Circle – 2(1) did not have a copy of the bank account, it was submitted that it is not understood as to what material was in the possession of the Department for initiating assessment u/s 147. Hence, initiation of assessment u/s 147 without