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

III which concerns itself with ‘Income which do not form part of total income’. This claim of deduction towards the cost of capital assets acquired as application of income u/s 11 , as well simultaneously computing income of charitable trust or institutions in commercial parlance after claiming deduction of depreciation expenses on such capital asset as provided

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

iii) in case of value of any money or\ncapital asset received by a specified person\nfrom a specified entity referred to in\nsubsection (4) of section 45, the amount\nchargeable to income-tax as income of such\nspecified entity under that sub-section which\nis attributable to the capital asset being\ntransferred by the specified entity, calculated

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

14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial\nportion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion. On the other-hand\nboth these persons contended that the liability to capital gains\narose for the assessment year

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

14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial\nportion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion. On the other-hand\nboth these persons contended that the liability to capital gains\narose for the assessment year

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

2,50,000). As per the sharing agreement, the landowners have got UDS (land area) of 1,09,924 sq.ft. So final land cost per sq feet is Rs.92.99 (Rs.1,02,22,000 divided by 109924 sq.ft.) • The COA was erroneously calculated at from 45.85 to 49.74 as cost per sq ft while filing the ITR. The correct COA rate

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

2,50,000). As per the sharing agreement, the landowners have got UDS (land area) of 1,09,924 sq.ft. So final land cost per sq feet is Rs.92.99 (Rs.1,02,22,000 divided by 109924 sq.ft.) • The COA was erroneously calculated at from 45.85 to 49.74 as cost per sq ft while filing the ITR. The correct COA rate

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

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

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

iii)accidental fire or explosion; or (iv)action by an enemy or action taken in combating an enemy (whether with or without a declaration of war),then, any profits or gains arising from receipt of such money or other assets shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains" and shall be deemed to be the income

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

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

2)(i), as "Income from other sources". Although the shares are held on the investment portfolio as an integral part of the business, the interest on such borrowings is allowable under section 36(1)(iii). Thus, the qualifying factor to ascertain whether the borrowings for purchasing shares is an integral part of the business of the assessee. The interest

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

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

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 Court followed

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

14 of the Act,\nall income shall, for the purposes of charge of income tax and\ncomputation of total income, be classified under the five heads of\nincome as specified. Therefore, we do not agree with the contention\nof the assessee that the entire interest income of Rs.3,05,38,002/-\nare allowable as deduction u/s 80P(2

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

capital, if not immediately required\nto be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they\ndeposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income\nis attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit\nfacilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

capital gain arised out of this\ntransaction. Accordingly, he gave direction to the ld. AO to examine\nthe claim made by the assessee as compulsory acquisition under\nRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land\nAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In our\nopinion, the property has been acquired under KIADB Act, 1966 for\nMetro\nvide its notification\nwork