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

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

Gains.\n3. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law to appreciate that the fact the shares held by the\nbank in CanFin Homes Ltd. are to be treated as capital asset.\n3. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that it was strategic investment by the bank.\n3. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following

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

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in Memo of Appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Benches, Bangalore, which reads as under:- A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek “1. The impugned Appellate Order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. The NFAC committed

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

2,90,19,392/-, but, declared sale\nconsideration on sale of property at Rs. 99,83,300/- only, which is\npertaining to sale of only one property sold vide sale deed registered as\ndocument number 2633/201516 dated 21/08/2015 and the assessee has\nfailed to disclosed capital gains on sale of remaining seven properties. In\nthis case, the stamp duty value

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2) clearly permits set-off of short-term capital loss against income under the head “Capital gains” from any other capital asset. The provision does not impose any restriction based on the rate of tax. He argued that rate provisions under sections 111A and 112 operate independently from computation provisions. The CPC exceeded its jurisdiction under section 143

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) clearly permits set-off of short-term capital\nloss against income under the head “Capital gains” from any other\ncapital asset. The provision does not impose any restriction based on the\nrate of tax. He argued that rate provisions under sections 111A and 112\noperate independently from computation provisions. The CPC exceeded\nits jurisdiction under section 143

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

capital gains for one. Information received indicated that the stamp duty value of all properties was significantly higher than the declared sale consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on this discrepancy and also on undeclared interest income from fixed deposits. The AO issued a notice under section 148 and completed the assessment under section 147 read with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain. The deeming provision under Section 50\nC (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable\nproperty may have various attributes, charges. encumbrances,\nlimitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not\ntake into consideration the attributes of the property for determining\nthe fair market value in the condition, the property is offered

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

143(2) of the\nAct was not required to be issued since the return of income was on\n26.2.2021 in response to the Notice u/s 153C of the Act dated\n24-03-2020 which was said to be invalid without appreciating the fact\nthat the AO has not issued any Defective Notice u/s 139(9) and\ntherefore the return filed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

143(3) of the Act as the assessee has satisfied the conditions of the proviso of said section as the assessee filed return of income u/s 139(4C) of the Act and he relied on the remand report submitted by the AO, which is placed on record in pages 137 to 140. He also relied on the judgement of jurisdictional

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

143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 10/02/2015 for the AY 2007-08 by calculating the short termcapital gains on transfer of land under the Joint development agreement dated 01/03/2007 as detailed belowfor ease of reference and convenience- ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 27 of 33 Particulars

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

143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 10/02/2015 for the AY 2007-08 by calculating the short termcapital gains on transfer of land under the Joint development agreement dated 01/03/2007 as detailed belowfor ease of reference and convenience- ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 27 of 33 Particulars

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

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

143(2) of the Act pursuant to the return filed in compliance to section 148 of the Act. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are invalid and bad in law. 3. Assessment Order passed by the Learned AO under section 144 rws 147 rws 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation under section

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

143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO. The assessee also contended that the addition made under the head “Long Term Capital Gain” on conversion of the partnership firm into a company is also not in accordance with section

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

2 of 31 3. Grounds on reopening: a. Grounds on notice issued under section 148: i. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. ii. The reopening of assessment is void ab initio as the reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer is based on borrowed satisfaction and that there is no independent application

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

2 of 8 from other sources against the business loss and carry forward the unabsorbed business loss of Rs. 46,04,890/-. The capital gains were separately offered to tax, and the assessee discharged the applicable tax liability of Rs. 3,58,312/-. However, the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), while processing the return under Section 143

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

143(3) r.w.s. 144A of the Act. One of the disallowance made in the assessment order was denying exemption claimed u/s. 10A of the act on the ground that, the export turnover brought into India does not amount to 75 percent of the total turnover of the STP unit. It was submitted by the assessee that, it treated export credits

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