M/S. HANUMANTHAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gain arises out of compulsory acquisition of land by KIADB for BMRCL project is not taxable though it was acquired under KIAD Act, 1966. The CIT(A) though observed that the assessee cannot make fresh claim without filing return of income, he decided the issue on merit also, by dismissing the claim of the assessee. Being

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

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

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

24). It is also not understood as ‘income’ in its natural import. The land owners are contractually bound to repay the deposits to the assessee. The lnad owners are thus have no ‘control’ over the security deposit. 3.57 In view of the above, the learned AR submitted that the conclusion drawn by the A.O. in the impugned order that

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

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 HC; b. Seshasayee Steels

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

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 HC; b. Seshasayee Steels

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

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 HC; b. Seshasayee Steels

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

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 HC; b. Seshasayee Steels

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

24,156 as per Original return filed by the Appellant as against a TDS of Rs.53,62,080 as per 26AS. Hence the difference in TDS of Rs.14,37,924 deserves to be allowed by lifting the restriction imposed. 4. The Learned Authorities Below ought not to have charged interest under section 234 B on the tax resulting from

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

24 of 82 retrospective notwithstanding the fact that the amendment has been given effect prospectively. The above principles, if applied to the amendment to the provisions of Sec.153C of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014, can lead to only one conclusion that the said amendment is clarificatory and therefore should be held to be retrospective in operation

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

24 of 82 retrospective notwithstanding the fact that the amendment has been given effect prospectively. The above principles, if applied to the amendment to the provisions of Sec.153C of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014, can lead to only one conclusion that the said amendment is clarificatory and therefore should be held to be retrospective in operation

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

x 76,75,200 = Rs. 73,40,480/- 1,40,00,000 7.2 In view of the above discussion, taxable long term capital gains in assessee case are computed at Rs. 60,48,571/- (Rs. 1,33,89,451 — Rs. 73,40,480) and brought to tax during A.Y. 2015-16. Disallowance : Rs.60,48,571/-” Page

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

X 15/100). The only dispute is with regard to cost per sq.ft. towards the land to be adopted while arriving at the capital gain on the sale of the properties. The assessee himself adopted a rate of Rs. 45.85 per sq.ft. in the return of income filed for the AY 2021-22 however, during the course of assessment proceedings submitted

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

X 15/100). The only dispute is with regard to cost per sq.ft. towards the land to be adopted while arriving at the capital gain on the sale of the properties. The assessee himself adopted a rate of Rs. 45.85 per sq.ft. in the return of income filed for the AY 2021-22 however, during the course of assessment proceedings submitted

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai , Jm Ita No.28 /Bang/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #289, 1St Floor, 15Th Main, Rmv Income-Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Extension, Bengaluru Bengaluru-560 080. [Pan:Asups 9568B]

X of the procurement agreement gives the parties the right to sue each other for specific performance of the agreement. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that out of the amount of Rs.21,11,00,000/- received from M/s. Metro Corp and Metro Corp Infrastructure Ltd., only an amount of Rs.5,53,81,059/- was given by the assessee as advances

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SHRI. M.R. ANANDARAM (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

24 they observe that "The condition necessary for application of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be presumed to exist and the Tax authorities cannot blindly apply these provisions by merely relying upon the fact that there was an agreement for sale and delivery of possession by the transferor/seller to the transferee/ purchaser. If such a course

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

X 40.26) as unexplained investment within the meaning of Section 69 of I.T. Act, 1961 and adding it to the total income of the assessee". 5. It can be seen that identical amount in dollar is considered as unexplained investment for all the years and for all the year identical ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 64 conversion rate

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

X 40.26) as unexplained investment within the meaning of Section 69 of I.T. Act, 1961 and adding it to the total income of the assessee". 5. It can be seen that identical amount in dollar is considered as unexplained investment for all the years and for all the year identical ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 64 conversion rate