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

150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 [D]\n14,60,95,303\n54,28,86,124\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which reads "subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the stock of the firm, or acquired, by purchase or otherwise by or for the firm or for the purpose and in the course of the business

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which reads "subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the stock of the firm, or acquired, by purchase or otherwise by or for the firm or for the purpose and in the course of the business

RANGARAJ ROHINI,INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE 2(1) BANGALORE, KORMANGALA BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

150 taxmann.com 188 and Smt. Malati Venugopala Umadevi vs. ITO in ITA No. 1686/Bang/2019 also support this view. . IT(TP)A No.224/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 7 9. It is further submitted that the property was sold for Rs. 2,68,00,000 and for the purpose of computing capital gains, the cost of acquisition should be taken

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

150/- and in assessment M/s. Power Point, Bangalore Page 7 of 55 order, Indexed cost of acquisition has been allowed to the extent of Rs 5, 65, 73,499/- . 5. The additional evidence filed by the assessee may be admitted, but it does not substantiate any cost of improvement incurred by the assessee for the property sold, which

M/S. ZASH TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

capital gains\", more so, when the\nsame is pursuant to an incorrect reading of express legal provisions.\n5. That the impugned Order is erroneous in as much as it has failed to read\nthat the provisions of Section 55(2)(aa) with all its sub-clauses have been\nmade subject to the provisions of Section

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

section 153C, the Respondent filed the return of\nincome declaring salary income from Chamundi Distilleries Private\nLimited of Rs.60,000/-, agricultural income of Rs. 1,75,000/- and\nexemption from long-term capital gains of Rs.9,16,00,000. Based on\nthe documents found during the search in the Assessee's group\ncases, the ld. AO noted that the Respondent

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

section 153C, the Respondent filed the return of\nincome declaring salary income from Chamundi Distilleries Private\nLimited of Rs.60,000/-, agricultural income of Rs. 1,75,000/- and\nexemption from long-term capital gains of Rs.9,16,00,000. Based on\nthe documents found during the search in the Assessee's group\ncases, the ld. AO noted that the Respondent

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

Capital Gains’. After satisfying himself on the above issue, the assessing officer issued another notice u/s. 142(1) dated 25.11.2016 seeking details of deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act. The assessing officer has requested for approval of the Pr. CIT for converting the case from limited to complete scrutiny. The approval was communicated to assessing officer on 29.11.2016. However

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to \n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

150/- being Income from Salary, Income from House property \nand Income from Other Sources. He also admitted agricultural income \nof Rs.91,000/-. The return of income was processed under section \n143(1) of the Act returning a Nil demand. \n\n6. A search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on \n15.03.2016 at Room No. 306 Hotel CIDADE

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

150 crores. Certain sums were received by the assessee in AY 2010-11. It is in lieu of this receipt that the arbitration award directed the assessee to register the said. Now, section 43CA is a special provision for full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than capital assets in certain cases. This provision was brought

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" has to be computed and it lays down that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides that the Central Government may notify

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

capital gains in his return of income. Moreover, the amendment effected by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f 01/06/2015 to section 269SS of the Act, which had laid a restriction for receiving cash for transfer of immovable property would not have come to the knowledge of the assessee who is a senior citizen aged 82 years having elementary education and no knowledge

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

150/- being Income from Salary, Income from House property\n\nITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024\nITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024\nPage 36 of 155\n\nand Income from Other Sources. He also admitted agricultural income\nof Rs.91,000/-. The return of income was processed under section\n143(1) of the Act returning a Nil demand.\n\n6. A search under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

150/- being Income from Salary, Income from House property\nand Income from Other Sources. He also admitted agricultural income\nof Rs.91,000/-. The return of income was processed under section\n143(1) of the Act returning a Nil demand.\n6. A search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on\n15.03.2016 at Room No. 306 Hotel CIDADE

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

150/- being Income from Salary, Income from House property \nand Income from Other Sources. He also admitted agricultural income \nof Rs.91,000/-. The return of income was processed under section \n143(1) of the Act returning a Nil demand.\n\n6. A search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on \n15.03.2016 at Room No. 306 Hotel CIDADE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

150/- being Income from Salary, Income from House property ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 37 of 155 and Income from Other Sources. He also admitted agricultural income of Rs.91,000/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act returning a Nil demand. 6. A search under section

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\nC. The Third issue is that