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

194 ITR 125 (Ker). The issue before the Hon'ble Court was Whether the land in question situated within Guruvayur Township can be treated as a capital asset within the definition of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act? After having comprehensively, dealt with the issue of 'Whether the local authority is a Municipality?' as under: "(On page 127)…………………………………………………………………… From

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

194-IA from ‘refundable security deposit’ given to the land owners. The A.O. has reasoned that the refundable security deposit given to land owners constitutes ‘consideration’ for the transfer of the immovable property (land) under section 194IA. In arriving at this conclusion, the A.O. relied on the meaning of the term “consideration” as defined in section 2(d) of Indian

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 194-IA of the Act to the tune of Rs.54,00,000/- at the rate of 1%. The above narrated facts are not disputed by the AO. 11. The assessee while filing the return of income has computed the capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

M/S K. MOHAN & COMPANY (EXPORTS) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

capital loan, the assessee had to enter into a currency swap arrangement. The ITA Nos. 1093/B0/09, 1266/B/10 & 1057 & 1103/B/12 Page 8 of 50 assessee entered into currency swap transaction in respect of outstanding foreign currency loans as per the prevailing RBI guidelines. The currency swap transaction on settlement resulted in a loss of Rs.6.05 crores. The question before the Tribunal

M/S K. MOHAN & COMPNAY (EXPORTS) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

capital loan, the assessee had to enter into a currency swap arrangement. The ITA Nos. 1093/B0/09, 1266/B/10 & 1057 & 1103/B/12 Page 8 of 50 assessee entered into currency swap transaction in respect of outstanding foreign currency loans as per the prevailing RBI guidelines. The currency swap transaction on settlement resulted in a loss of Rs.6.05 crores. The question before the Tribunal

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S K. MOHAN & COMPANY (EXPORTS) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

capital loan, the assessee had to enter into a currency swap arrangement. The ITA Nos. 1093/B0/09, 1266/B/10 & 1057 & 1103/B/12 Page 8 of 50 assessee entered into currency swap transaction in respect of outstanding foreign currency loans as per the prevailing RBI guidelines. The currency swap transaction on settlement resulted in a loss of Rs.6.05 crores. The question before the Tribunal

M/S. K. MOHAN & COMPANY (EXPORTS) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

capital loan, the assessee had to enter into a currency swap arrangement. The ITA Nos. 1093/B0/09, 1266/B/10 & 1057 & 1103/B/12 Page 8 of 50 assessee entered into currency swap transaction in respect of outstanding foreign currency loans as per the prevailing RBI guidelines. The currency swap transaction on settlement resulted in a loss of Rs.6.05 crores. The question before the Tribunal

T.D.SATYAN vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

194)(Raj.) and held that the mere fact that there was series of transaction of sale only by selling of plot of land purchased in one go or purchased once upon a time, piecemeal would not render the activity of sale as adventure in nature of trade. The Hon’ble High Court has observed that there was nothing to show

T.D.RAJAN vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

194)(Raj.) and held that the mere fact that there was series of transaction of sale only by selling of plot of land purchased in one go or purchased once upon a time, piecemeal would not render the activity of sale as adventure in nature of trade. The Hon’ble High Court has observed that there was nothing to show

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

section 50C as per the Act. Needless to say the assessee should get reasonable opportunity of hearing in set aside proceeding. Accordingly, Ground no. 2 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Ground no. 3 – Addition of LTCG for sale of land and building amounting to Rs.97,77,387/-. 7.1 Facts of the case are that as per Sale Deed

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VECTRA CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2009-10

Capital Gains 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal and ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee on this basis that there was no conversion from investment to stock in trade as alleged by the AO and Page 5 of 8 therefore, section 45(2) of the IT Act is not applicable

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

194-I are not applicable. As the Department has failed to bring to our notice any other decision expressing a contrary view, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground no.1, raised by the Department.” 13. Onceit

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

194-I are not applicable. As the Department has failed to bring to our notice any other decision expressing a contrary view, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground no.1, raised by the Department.” 13. Onceit

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

194-I are not applicable. As the Department has failed to bring to our notice any other decision expressing a contrary view, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground no.1, raised by the Department.” 13. Onceit

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

194-I are not applicable. As the Department has failed to bring to our notice any other decision expressing a contrary view, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground no.1, raised by the Department.” 13. Onceit

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Income - Tax Act by disregarding the facts, evidences and reasons and merely on the basis of suspicion, presumptions and without due and independent application of mind on the generalised report of the Investigation Wing of Kolkata, in total defiance of natural justice by denying sharing of the information and evidences collected behind