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

24 of 66 the date of conversion order, the conversion itself becomes questionable. In fact, the land which was hitherto agricultural land does not automatically become a capital asset on the mere fact of conversion to non-agricultural purpose. The land even though converted for non- agricultural purpose continues to be agricultural land and does not become capital asset

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 54(2) declares that within one year from the date of transfer if the capital gain is not invested in purchase of building, he should deposit the amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme or else the assessee should invest the capital gains before filing of return within the permitted period under s. 139. In which event, the assessee

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

gains which arose on the sale of the said lands was wrongly offered in the original return in as much as the same was exempt from tax being agricultural lands and hence excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' as per the provisions of s. 2 (14)(iii) of the Act. Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore Page

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

24(b) in computing income from House Property is different and the deduction of interest claimed in computing capital gains is different, as such none of them exclude the operation of the other. 4. The NFAC ought to have allowed the interest on borrowed amount as deduction in computing capital gains. 5. The NFAC erred in not granting relief

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

section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act. Let us therefore consider whether the transferee, on the facts of the present case, can be said to have 'performed or is willing to perform' its obligations under the agreement. 49. Even a cursory look at the admitted facts of the case would show that the transferee had neither performed

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

capital gain is imposed by the AO cannot be said to be a "contract of the nature Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore Page 24 of 33 referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act" and, accordingly, provisions of section 2

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

2 of the Act are subject to an overall restrictive clause viz., "unless the context otherwise requires". The Hon'ble Court therefore went into the question whether contextually section 45, in which the expression "capital asset" is used, excludes goodwill. The Hon'ble Court after referring to Sec.48 which provides the mode of computation of capital gain viz., deducting from

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 48(2) of the Act, according to the assessee. Accordingly, the capital gains for transfer of property to M/s. Gopalan Enterprises is required to be computed by giving a reasonable expenditure towards fencing and also by reducing Rs.3,30,29,479 from capital gains as computed by the AO. 21. The ld. DR submitted that the original agreement dated

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

2,01,24,000 vide sale deed dated 23.06.2014 and computed the long term capital gain at Rs. 41,08,845 and offered the same for taxation. The property sold was an apartment constructed by Brigade Enterprises Pvt Ltd. in pursuance of the agreement executed on 29.06.2006 Subsequently a sale deed was executed on 17.05.2010 In Accordance with the agreement

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

section 143(2) on the basis of the aforesaid return which was non-est in law. The ratio decidendi of this judgement is that the AO is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) at all, in a case where the assessee filed the return beyond the time limit prescribed for furnishing such return. It follows from this judgement

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

section 2(47) and hence the amount received on such reduction was taxable as capital gain. However, with due regard, the facts of the case are contrary to this case as there was no reduction in the face value of the shares. Page 5 of 19 11. The AR also referred to the case of DCIT v BPL Sanyo Finance

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A,\nclause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section\n23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34,4A,, section 35 and\nsection 37 of the Wealth-tax Act. 1957 (27 of 1957). shall, with\nnecessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they\napply

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

24,650 respectively was credited to her account. Another sum of Rs.18,12,528 was also credited as interest on capital in her capital account. After reducing the Partner’s drawing and other payments made the balance to the credit of Assessee’s capital account was Rs.2,77,88,200/-. The difference between the sum of Rs.3

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

capital gains as returned by the Appellant. They failed to prove their contention with material evidence to that effect. Hence the addition of Page 2 of 15 Rs.12,54,98,299 made as revenue profits deserves to be deleted. 3. The Learned Authorities Below have erred in restricting the credit to be given to TDS at Rs.39,24