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

156 ITR 509 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under the Income-tax Act, 1961, where a partner of a firm makes over capital assets which are held by him to a firm as his contribution towards capital, there is a transfer of a capital asset within the terms of section 45 of the Act, because an exclusive interest

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

156 pages inter alia enclosing therein copy of the return of income along with computation of income for the relevant assessment year, copy of the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the I.T.Act, copies of the replies filed by the assessee to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the I.T.Act, copies of the sale deeds executed by the assessee

L. VIVEKANANDA,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 2(47) to prevent avoidance of capital gains liability by recourse to transfer of rights in the manner referred to above. A person holding the Power of Attorney is authorized the powers of owner, including that of making construction though the legal ownership in such cases continues to be with the transferor. The intention of legislature is to treat

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

capital gains as returned by the Appellant. They failed to prove their contention with material evidence to that effect. Hence the addition of Page 2 of 15 Rs.12,54,98,299 made as revenue profits deserves to be deleted. 3. The Learned Authorities Below have erred in restricting the credit to be given to TDS at Rs.39,24,156

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 gain of Rs.13,44,03,010/-. The Ld.AO observed that assessee invested Rs.60 lakh in new residential house and claimed exemption of an amount of Rs.59,73,467/- under section 54F of the Act. 2.1 The Ld.AO called upon assessee to submit the details to satisfy all the conditions to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act. Assessee

TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

156 to 158 of Paperbook) was not accounted in the books by the firm, nor the same is reflected in the Page 10 of 20 capital accounts of the partners. The computation of the gain is not disputed by the lower authorities, though the assessee has not produced any supporting document to show how the original cost of the land

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

gains has to be computed u/s 48. Page 9 of 19 The Sentiments emerging from the aforesaid observations of High Court is applicable to the assessee to conclude that even a nil consideration on capital reduction cannot defeat the computation mechanism u/s 48. We also draw your attention to the following judgments: CIT v G. Narasimhan & other

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

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

156 respectively held that the term “consideration” in the absence of a definition under the direct taxes legislation would carry the meaning as defined in the Indian Contract Act. Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act defines the term ‘consideration’ in the following manner: "When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done

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 12,000 10,000 d) Why the Safe Harbour Limit of 10% Should be Retrospective? Legal maxim 'Law Prospicit Non Respicit' presumes law to be prospective & not retrospective. However, where the legislation is enacted with a purpose of mitigating undue hardship the provision in such a case has to be given a reasonable & equitable construction

SIR ANIL DEV ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assesseee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013 – 14 Shree Anil Dev, C/O M/S Suresh & Co., Chartered Accountants, Dcit Circle – 2 (2) (1), #43/16, ‘Srinidhi’, 1St Floor, Vs. Bengaluru Surveyor Street, Basavangudi, Bengaluru - 560004 Pan : Aeppd4791L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree Nitish Ranjan, C. A. Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A) – 10 Bengaluru Dated 10.01.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds But Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That As Per These Grounds, This Is The Only Effective Grievance Of The Assessee That The Ao & Cit (A) Were Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee For Deduction U/S 54F. Page 2 Of 14

section 54F becomes applicable and no deduction u/s 54F is allowable. He pointed out that payment for this second residential property is made from this joint account only in which the wife of the assessee also deposited 50% of sale proceeds of shares Rs. 480,84,057/- and she has claimed deduction u/s 54F for purchase of the second property

M/S NITESH ESTATES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

capital gain is taxable in AY 11-12 only. There is no inconsistency in the approach of AOs in this regard as held by Ld. CIT(A). 3.5 The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that department has got recourse to recover taxes against the deductee, it may be pointed out that in terms of section

M/S APCO CONCRETE BLOCKS & ALLIED PRODUCTS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 49(1)(iii)(a) of the Act; (ii) the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT reported in (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC) is directly applicable to the facts of the issue under consideration whereby it was held that when an individual brings his individual property as capital contribution

MRS.KAVITA TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazmrs. Kavita Tiwari, D-202, Adarsh Residency, 8Th Block, Jayanagar, Sangam Circle, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Acvpt1583G. Appellant By : Shri R.E Balasubramaniam, C.A Respondent By : Shri M.K Biju, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -10-2017 O R D E R

capital gains are concerned. The word "assessee" must be given wide ITA No.1916/B/16 13 and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. There is no warrant for giving too strict an interpretation to the word "assessee" as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption. 11. We also find judgments of other High Courts giving benefit

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.

gains chargeable to tax. 12. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in not following the ratios laid down in the following decisions which were in favour of the appellant and squarely on similar facts and circumstances. (i) Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Bangalore V. Karnataka Agro Chemicals (2014) 49 Taxmann.com 324 (Kar). (ii) Commissioner of Income