ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 48 provides the mode of computation for charging capital gain to tax. Income chargeable under the head capital gain shall be computed by deducting from the full & CO 86/Bang/2015 Page 16 of 24 value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

19. He also submitted that CBDT released a notification No.35/2020 dated 24.06.2020 extending the date for making investment / construction / purchase for claiming rollover benefit / deduction in respect of capital gains under sections

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

Section Page 19 of 40 2(47)(v) of the Act cannot be applied to justify determination of capital gains

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 80G of the Act for Rs. 16,28,978/- only. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual, during the year under consideration derived income under the house property, business income, capital gain and other sources. In the return of income, the assessee declared Gross Total Income

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 2(31) of the Act define person to include an individual as well as a firm. Therefore, merely because the land was acquired from the firm at the guideline value & the transfer under the JDA is also required to be considered at the same guideline value that does not mean the capital gain accruing as a result

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 2(31) of the Act define person to include an individual as well as a firm. Therefore, merely because the land was acquired from the firm at the guideline value & the transfer under the JDA is also required to be considered at the same guideline value that does not mean the capital gain accruing as a result

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 48, the language employed is unambiguous. The intention is very clear. When a capital asset is transferred, in order to determine the capital gain from such transfer, what is to be seen is, out of full value of the consideration received or accruing, the cost of acquisition of the asset, the cost of improvement and any expenditure wholly

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 45 shall apply to the following transfers:— "(ii) any distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm, body of individuals or other association of persons;" 18. Clause (ii) omitted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-4-1988. Prior to omission of Sec.47(ii) of the Act, distribution of capital assets on dissolution of a firm, body

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

19. As far as the other issue of capital gain on sale of land & building is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had wrongly treated the entire capital gains as short term capital gain in its return of income and the same needs to be treated as short term capital gains for sale of building

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

section 10(3)/56 of the l-T Act and it was only in the alternative that he recorded the finding that the impugned receipt is also liable to tax on account of transfer of goodwill. At Para 21.7 (page 28) of his order the ld. CIT(A) has held that the receipt does not have the character of income

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

capital gains'. The question, therefore, is: Whether the agricultural land of the assessee sold in public auction can be said to be situated in an area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality. The case of the Revenue is that it is, because the Guruvayur Township is a municipality within the meaning of that word in the section

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

section (1) i.e., within a period of two year after the date of transfer of capital asset which gives rise to capital gain, then the amount not so utilised shall be charged u/s. 45 as income of the previous year in which period of two years from the date of transfer of the original asset expires. In that case

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

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

section. 17. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question of mode and method of computation of capital gain as there is no dispute in this regard, which requires adjudication in this appeal. 18. The question is, whether any part of the capital gain from transfer of the residential house is exempt from the capital gain

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.

section. 17. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question of mode and method of computation of capital gain as there is no dispute in this regard, which requires adjudication in this appeal. 18. The question is, whether any part of the capital gain from transfer of the residential house is exempt from the capital gain

PRADEEP KAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Geoergeassessment Year : 2006-07

19. If one considers the date on which it was decided to sell the property, i.e. 27th December, 2002 as the date of transfer or sale, it cannot be disputed that the appellants would be entitled to the benefit under the provisions of Section 54 of the Act because long term capital gain

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B,54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 5 Dr. Devika Gunasheela, Bengaluru Page 4 of 19

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

19. The above section provides that the if the AO is satisfied that if the documents seized have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the six assessment years preceding the year of search. The section does not use the word incriminating document, it is the various judicial decisions which have brought

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore Page 21 of 66 produced details of RTC which have been reproduced in the earlier part of this order. 19. Thus, the assessee made a plea that the said land

PRASHANTH PRAKASH,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I,.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2009-10

19,83,885 16,98,042 Building Concorde property building 22,14,080 Less: Cost of construction 22,14,080 7. The Assessing Officer accepted the aforesaid claim of the assessee. The only objection of the AO was with regard to claim of assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs.7,82,394 which was interest paid on borrowing, which