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

Capital Gain Deposit Scheme A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek with the banks on or before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1). Our attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 54. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment and order of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

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

section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 26. The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G.Patel (supra) is a case where the deed of reconstitution specifically referred to release of rights of the outgoing partners in the assets of the partnership and further

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

capital gain is not to be charged under Section 45 of the said Act." “16. From the above, it is dear that the intention of the Legislature was to either purchase before or after the date of sale and the word 'purchased or 'constructed' used in the Notes on Clauses amply makes the intention clear. In the light

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

capital gain is not to be charged under Section 45 of the said Act." “16. From the above, it is dear that the intention of the Legislature was to either purchase before or after the date of sale and the word 'purchased or 'constructed' used in the Notes on Clauses amply makes the intention clear. In the light

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain against the claim of assessee that it is exempt. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted as follows. Transfer of land is not adventure in nature of trade 12. The ld. AR submitted that the transfer of land is not an ‘adventure in the nature of trade’. In this regard, it was submitted as follows:- a. The land

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain against the claim of assessee that it is exempt. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted as follows. Transfer of land is not adventure in nature of trade 12. The ld. AR submitted that the transfer of land is not an ‘adventure in the nature of trade’. In this regard, it was submitted as follows:- a. The land

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain against the claim of assessee that it is exempt. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted as follows. Transfer of land is not adventure in nature of trade 12. The ld. AR submitted that the transfer of land is not an ‘adventure in the nature of trade’. In this regard, it was submitted as follows:- a. The land

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain against the claim of assessee that it is exempt. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted as follows. Transfer of land is not adventure in nature of trade 12. The ld. AR submitted that the transfer of land is not an ‘adventure in the nature of trade’. In this regard, it was submitted as follows:- a. The land

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 shall not be charged under Section 45. 4.6 Hon'ble Karnataka High Court analysed the conditions that needs to be fulfilled to enter exemption clause and thereafter applicability was liberally interpreted. 4.7 Similar is the analysis by Hon'ble Madras High Court in decisions of M/s Moturi Laxmi Vs. ITO in ITA No.181 of 2019 by order dated

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

capital gains taxation, it is exempt under sec.47(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. The case of the Revenue is that a company cannot make a gift and also seen if it is treated as a gift, it is not eligible for exemption provided under sec.47(iii), as correct provision of law applies to the case of the assessee

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains tax 17. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant submits that the asset transferred is an agriculture land within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Appellant submits that although the lands were converted, agricultural activities were carried on by the Appellant till the date of transfer. The same can be evidenced from

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains tax 17. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant submits that the asset transferred is an agriculture land within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Appellant submits that although the lands were converted, agricultural activities were carried on by the Appellant till the date of transfer. The same can be evidenced from

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

163(SC). It has been laid down in that decision that, "Section" 2(47) of the Income Tax Act,1961, defines "transfer" in relation to a capital asset. It is an inclusive definition which, inter cilia, provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right there in amounts to a transfer of a capital asset

SHRI.PARSWANATH PADMARAJAIAH JAIN ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A No.453/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri. Parswanath Padmarajaiah Jain, 9Th Main, Koramangala 3Rd Block, Bengaluru 560 034 .. Appellant Pan : Aehpp3827M V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ganesh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. Cit Heard On : 13.12.2018 Pronounced On : 21.12.2018

gains of Rs.8,62,15,500/- on the premise that the assessee’s case falls within the purview of Section 54F(1) as the assessee has carried out the construction which includes the purchase of land and therefore the assessee was entitled to the benefit of 54F for the above said amount. However during the assessment proceedings

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

gain was calculated at Rs.26,06,434/-. Assessee filed detailed written submissions which was considered and not accepted and AO made addition under the LTCG of Rs.26,06,434/-. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), observed that the assessee did not satisfy the condition of section

SMT.CHANDRAKALA SHASHIDAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

163 (Karnataka). The Assessing Officer, however, vide order dated 20.12.2016, passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act restricted the exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act to the extent of Rs.24,44,124. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer in restricting the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the I.T.Act was that the balance amount was not deposited in capital gains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

gains tax on it or can claim if there is any capital loss after computing indexed cost of acquisition. The CIT(A) also distinguished the two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anarkali ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 11 of 31 Sarabhai Vs CIT 224 ITR 422 and Karthikeya Sarabhai Vs CIT 228 ITR 163

M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), BANGLAOORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

gains tax on it or can claim if there is any capital loss after computing indexed cost of acquisition. The CIT(A) also distinguished the two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anarkali ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 11 of 31 Sarabhai Vs CIT 224 ITR 422 and Karthikeya Sarabhai Vs CIT 228 ITR 163

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

capital gain. Now, speaking about the provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act is a well considered after thought to evade tax liability and further the assessee has not raised these contentions before any of the lower authorities. It was further stated that principle of estoppel applies here which precludes the person from ascertain something contrary to what