M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital gains on buy back of shares. ITA Nos. 1783 and 1784/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 10 11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that in the facts of the present case, section 46A is applicable and therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A). 12. In the result, the appeal

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital gains on buy back of shares. ITA Nos. 1783 and 1784/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 10 11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that in the facts of the present case, section 46A is applicable and therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A). 12. In the result, the appeal

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

1A) and section 49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in section 53A. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not correct in referring to the expression "of the nature referred to in section 53A" in section 2(47)(v) in order

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. M/s. Atria Wind (Kadambur) Private Limited, Bangalore Page 6 of 19 (1A

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

1A) of section 192, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter”. The use of expressions ‘in respect of income’ and ‘tax on income’ in section 190(1) clearly indicates that the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act attracts only in respect of the income of an assessee. 3.50 The Supreme Court in Transmission

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

capital gains. It would be\ninteresting to note that both the above decisions were turned to be\nin favour of the assessee in the light of the facts of those cases.\nThe 2001 Amendment\n7.12\nThe 2001 bill of The Registration and Other related laws\n(Amendment) Act dated 24th September, 2001 brought down following\nvital amendments relating

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

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

1A) and section 49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in section 53A. • The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression 'of the nature referred to in section 53A' in section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive

M/S FABSUN ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 1998-99

capital gains arising from the sale of the assets at the old place from where an industrial undertaking is shifted in terms of the scheme of the Central Government announced for this purpose. In order to be eligible for the concession specified conditions have to be fulfilled. Though the expression industrial ‘undertaking’ has not been defined in this chapter

MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

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

1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act shows that\nin the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken\ncognizance of, for the purpose specified in Section 53A.\nThe ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression “of\nthe nature referred to in Section 53A” in Section\n2(47)(v) in order to arrive

BASHEER NOORULLAH KHAN,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Basheer Noorullah Khan, No. 116B, 5Th Block, Khb The Commissioner Of Colony, Koramangala, Vs. Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore – 560 034. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk3037H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of the new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1), exceeds (b) the amount that would not have been so charged had the amount actually utilised

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

M/S AGNUS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain having regard to the definition under section 2(47) of the Act is the date on which possession is handed over by the developer and has observed as follows:- “Under section 2(47)(v), any transaction involving allowing of possession to be taken over or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred

SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDYT vs. DCIT,

In the result, ITA No.1778/Bang/2012 (A

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

sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. (1A

SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDYT vs. DCIT,

In the result, ITA No.1778/Bang/2012 (A

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

sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. (1A