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 in view of section 2(14) read with sections 45 and 48 of the Act?" 7.3.5. After taking into account the submissions of the either of the party and also the perusal of the orders of the authorities below, the Hon'ble Court had held as under: "5. We find from the record that the Appellate Commissioner as well

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

2) If a depositor in respect of whose deposit account a nomination is in force, dies, the nominee, if he desires to close the account or accounts and obtain the payment of the balance standing to the credit in the account of the deceased depositor, shall make an application to the deposit office in Form H or as near thereto

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

capital gain tax can be levied.\" Concluded at page 12\npara no. 31 as under:-\n\"53. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as stood prior to its\namendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a\nbanking company. We answer the question No. 2

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

31 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. In other words a payer is required to withhold tax under section 194IA even if the immovable property constitutes stock-in- trade. 3.61 The definition of the term ‘transfer’ in section 2(47) is relevant in context of computing ‘capital gains

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

Section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above, the capital gains could not have been taxed in the in this assessment year under consideration. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore Page 31

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

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). Taxing gain on slump sale as capital gain is also not possible because the Apex Court following the decision in CIT V. B. C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) held that the charging section and the computation sections are integrated code and if one fails other fails. If the computation sections fail then even the charging section fails

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

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 153 of the Act (as existing at the relevant time) to assessee / reassess the capital gains in the suitable hands.” 6. We have considered the rival submissions. As per the written submissions filed by ld. AR of assessee, it has been stated that in the present case, the notice Page 31 of 37 issued

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

31 situated at Manchanayakanahalli Village measuring 2 acres 9 guntas. Seized material marked as A/SPRDPL/5 Page No. Description 61 to 66 Absolute sale deed dated 08/02/1996 by Shri.Arasappa and 2 others to Shri.Dasappa for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- for the land bearing Sy.No.58/3A situated at Manchanayakanahalli village measuring 16 guntas. Seized material marked as A/SPRDPU18 Page No. Description

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

31 situated at Manchanayakanahalli Village measuring 2 acres 9 guntas. Seized material marked as A/SPRDPL/5 Page No. Description 61 to 66 Absolute sale deed dated 08/02/1996 by Shri.Arasappa and 2 others to Shri.Dasappa for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- for the land bearing Sy.No.58/3A situated at Manchanayakanahalli village measuring 16 guntas. Seized material marked as A/SPRDPU18 Page No. Description

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

31 situated at Manchanayakanahalli Village measuring 2 acres 9 guntas. Seized material marked as A/SPRDPL/5 Page No. Description 61 to 66 Absolute sale deed dated 08/02/1996 by Shri.Arasappa and 2 others to Shri.Dasappa for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- for the land bearing Sy.No.58/3A situated at Manchanayakanahalli village measuring 16 guntas. Seized material marked as A/SPRDPU18 Page No. Description

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

31 situated at Manchanayakanahalli Village measuring 2 acres 9 guntas. Seized material marked as A/SPRDPL/5 Page No. Description 61 to 66 Absolute sale deed dated 08/02/1996 by Shri.Arasappa and 2 others to Shri.Dasappa for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- for the land bearing Sy.No.58/3A situated at Manchanayakanahalli village measuring 16 guntas. Seized material marked as A/SPRDPU18 Page No. Description

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

2 of 82 appellant has claimed exemption of long term capital gain on account of transfer of agriculture land measuring 13 Acre and 31 Guntas to the M/s. Good Life Shelters Pvt. Ltd [GSPL]. 3. The assessee contended that the land sold was not taxable as the same not being a capital asset within the meaning of section

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

2 of 82 appellant has claimed exemption of long term capital gain on account of transfer of agriculture land measuring 13 Acre and 31 Guntas to the M/s. Good Life Shelters Pvt. Ltd [GSPL]. 3. The assessee contended that the land sold was not taxable as the same not being a capital asset within the meaning of section

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

31-8-1961, (2) Rs. 50,000 as his share of the value of the goodwill, and (3) Rs. 4,77,941 as his share in the remaining assets of the firm. The issue with regard to taxability of the sum of Rs. 4,77,941 or any part thereof to capital gains tax arose for consideration before

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

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's 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

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

capital gain tax as a date of acquisition. It was noted that such allotment is final unless it is cancelled or the allottee withdrew from the scheme and such allotment would be cancelled only under exceptional circumstances. It was noted that the allottee gets title to the property on the issue of allotment letter and the payment of instalments