SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

gain on sale of 1,74,000 bonus shares of Bharat Electronic Limited\n(referred to as \"Bonus BEL Shares\" for brevity) is not exempt under Section 10(38) as the\nsame is in the nature of business income.\n7. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in concurring with the conclusion of the learned AU that\npurchase

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

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

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

gain on sale of 1,74,000 bonus shares of Bharat Electronic Limited\n(referred to as \"Bonus BEL Shares\" for brevity) is not exempt under section 10(38) as the\nsame is in the nature of business income.\nThe learned CIT(A) has erred in concurring with the conclusion of the learned AU that\npurchase of 87,000 original

SMT. SWAMIAPPAN PUNITHAVATHI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

capital gain tax. 3. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the crucial factor to determine the land sold is agriculture land is that whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for the agricultural purposes. The assessee during the appellate proceedings has submitted copy of Land Revenue Records and other supporting documents in support of his claim before

SRI. SWAMIAPPAN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

capital gain tax. 3. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the crucial factor to determine the land sold is agriculture land is that whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for the agricultural purposes. The assessee during the appellate proceedings has submitted copy of Land Revenue Records and other supporting documents in support of his claim before

SRI. SWAMIAPPAN ANAND KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

capital gain tax. 3. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the crucial factor to determine the land sold is agriculture land is that whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for the agricultural purposes. The assessee during the appellate proceedings has submitted copy of Land Revenue Records and other supporting documents in support of his claim before

SRI. SWAMIAPPAN ARUL KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

capital gain tax. 3. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the crucial factor to determine the land sold is agriculture land is that whether the land was actually or ordinarily used for the agricultural purposes. The assessee during the appellate proceedings has submitted copy of Land Revenue Records and other supporting documents in support of his claim before

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

gain. Further, it was\nobserved that there are four categories of capital assets enumerated\nin clauses (a), (aa), (ab) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 55 of\nthe Act. Clause (b) is a residuary provision governing “any other capital\nasset”. Here, NFAC was concerned with the capital asset falling\nwithin the scope of sub-clause (aa) and category

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

156 of the Act does not create three times more than the actual liability as alleged by the assessee. Since, only one demand notice has been issued in the name of the three legal heirs collectively, and not separately for each individual, there is no duplication of tax demand. The AO has sought to ensure that the outstanding tax liability