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

gains chargeable to tax so far as such interest on housing loan on acquisition of capital asset is not claimed as deduction u/s 24(b) by the assessee, and that is what the assessee is also now contending, albeit without prejudice. Thus, the AO is required to verify whether or not interest on housing loan on the acquisition of capital

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

gains in accordance with section 70 of the Act. Consequently, the computation of gross total income as returned by the assessee was in accordance with law. Once the gross total income is restored to the figure declared in the return, the deduction under section 80G of the Act must also be computed with reference to such income. The restriction applied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005-\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee is only

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

13,02,430 [B] 32,64,99,962\n43,25,290\n43,25,290\n17,49,200\n17,49,200\n40,000\n40,000\nSurvey charges\nEvaluation and speculation of JD\nJD Agreement\nDesign and inspection\n11,251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

gains of\nbusiness attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking\nor providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is\nliable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the\nPage 7 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nAct. The Hon'ble Karnataka

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

2\npersons are as under :-\nLandowners and Developers share in the Land in the Project as\nPer JDA\nParticulars\nCommercial\nResidential\nTotal Area\nLand Share\n(Sq. Ft)\n77,627\n14,630\n92,257\nDevelopers\nShare (Sq. Ft)\n77,627\n1,94,368\n1,94,368\nTotal in Sq.\nFt\n77,627\n2,08,998\n2,86,625\nLandowners

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

13,94,60,000.00 Area or 1,83,500 sq. ft whichever is higher at the rate of 760 per sq. ft Less: COA for 61.5% of undivided share of land 1,67,28,000.00 Capital Gains 12,27,32,000.00 Share of assessee- 15% 1,84,09,800.00 3.2 After the completion of the JDA, the assessee was handed

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

13,94,60,000.00 Area or 1,83,500 sq. ft whichever is higher at the rate of 760 per sq. ft Less: COA for 61.5% of undivided share of land 1,67,28,000.00 Capital Gains 12,27,32,000.00 Share of assessee- 15% 1,84,09,800.00 3.2 After the completion of the JDA, the assessee was handed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

gains of\nbusiness attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking\nor providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is\nliable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the\nPage 7 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nAct. The Hon'ble Karnataka

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain. The deeming provision under Section 50\nC (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable\nproperty may have various attributes, charges. encumbrances,\nlimitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not\ntake into consideration the attributes of the property for determining\nthe fair market value in the condition, the property is offered

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

section 2(47)(v) so as to levy\ncapital gain tax on the date of execution of the JDA.\n7.9 The Hyderabad ITAT in Binjusaria Properties (P.)\nLtd. v. ACIT (149 ITD 169) (Hyd.) also deals with a similar issue.\nThe assessee had entered into a JDA-cum-GPA in AY 2006-07 with\na developer. The developer

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVAYASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

gains of\nbusiness attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking\nor providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is\nliable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the\nAct. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court also distinguished the decision of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

2(47) of the Act defines the transfer in relation to a capital asset. Section 45 of the Act deals with the profits or gains arising out of the transfer of the capital asset and treated the same as deemed income. Admittedly, in this case, there is a transfer of capital asset owned by the firm during the previous year

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

capital fund.] Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "computer software" means,— (a)any computer programme recorded on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device; or (b)any customized electronic data or any product or service of similar nature, as may be notified by the Board, which is transmitted or exported from India

UDAYA SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

gains or capital. 9.8 It is also noted that the identical view was taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of the Karnataka in the subsequent decision in case of Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Mysore dated 9th June 2015 reported in [2015] 60 taxmann.com 215. 9.9 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Karnataka High

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

2(47)(v) of the Act. In such circumstances, the\nessential conditions of transfer having not been satisfied,\nthere can be no charge of capital gains under Section 45(1)\nof the Act in this assessment year.\n9. We also note that during reassessment proceedings, the\nassessee had submitted photographs showing that the\nproject was still under construction, which substantiates