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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The conditions specified in the said case law and their satisfaction in the present case are tabulated below: S. Conditions Satisfaction of the Conditions No. 1 Yes. The JDA dated 11.12.2009 is the contract which specifies that the There should be a contract landowner is entitled to 40% of the super

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale. The beneficiary (an individual) holds

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale. The beneficiary (an individual) holds

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale. The beneficiary (an individual) holds

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a pre-determined Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale. The beneficiary (an individual) holds

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset is liable to be taxed under section 45. A company, under section 100(1) (c) of the Companies Act, 1956, has a right to reduce the share capital and one of the modes which can be adopted is to reduce the share capital and one of the modes which

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GENEVA FINE PUNCH ENCLOSURES LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumardeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Geneva Industries Ltd., (Formerly Geneva Fine Punch Enclosures Ltd.),No.140/1, Pattandur Agrahara Village, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 066. … Respondent Pan: Aaacg7208F & (By The Assessee) Assessee By : Shri B.Balachandran, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals)-I, Bengaluru, Dated 30/08/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly, Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Making Of Sheet Metal, Medical Equipments & Accessories. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-

section 54G of the Act. It is the case of the assessee that it shifted the industrial unit situated in urban area i.e. Whitefield to non-urban area and investment of a sum of Rs.19,84,150/- towards purchase of land was made. The capital gains

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

150 u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act. The return was subsequently revised on 07.02.2014 and the total income of Rs.132,92,94,900 was declared after set off of losses of Rs.84,49,20,104 (the 2 M/s.United Breweries Limited. assessee had declared book profit as declared in the original return). The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice

SRI.LOKESH M, ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

150 (ii) Compound wall and borewell with building in the year 1995-96 Rs.2,08,400 (iv) Salary of watchman at Rs.18000 per year for FY 96-97 to 1999-2000 and Rs.21,000 per year from FY 2000-01 to 2005- 06 and at Rs.24,000/- from FY 2006-07 to 2010-11 and Rs.16

SRI.LOKESH M, LR OF SMT MALATHI LOKESH ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

150 (ii) Compound wall and borewell with building in the year 1995-96 Rs.2,08,400 (iv) Salary of watchman at Rs.18000 per year for FY 96-97 to 1999-2000 and Rs.21,000 per year from FY 2000-01 to 2005- 06 and at Rs.24,000/- from FY 2006-07 to 2010-11 and Rs.16

SRI ANJANEYALU PRATHIPATHI,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Years: 2012-13

150/- & 2014-15 of Rs. 63,92,330/-, particularly when the Assessing Officer has proven that the Capital Gains arising on the sale of land would not have come to light, but for the search action u/s 132 ? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the eventuality that the assessee

MR.G.R.CHENNAKESHAVA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

150(Cal.). The CIT(A) further observed that the main purpose of section 54 of the Act is to give relief for the acquisition of the new residential house. Therefore it does not really matter that the new residential house is partly constructed or partly purchased. He accordingly confirmed the computation of long term capital gain

SMT. PREETHI PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Preethi Prasad, 423, 19Th Cross, 1St & 3Rd Block (East), Jayanagar, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore-Ii, Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Gr Reddy, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09-9-2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-9-2015 O R D E R

capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section.” 15. According to the AO, the assessee has complied with all the conditions stipulated in sec. 54F of the Act, except that the new asset, the residential

MRS. SHALINI ARAVIND vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

capital gains by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the case of release/relinquishment of right would be covered by the definition of ‘transfer’ given in section 2(47)(i) of the Act. Even otherwise in case of family settlement when various properties were involved a member may get lesser share or such share for consideration of release of share

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