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

2 of 16 sale of units of mutual fund and thereby reducing the eligible deduction under section 80G of the Act for Rs. 16,28,978/- only. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual, during the year under consideration derived income under the house property, business income, capital gain and other sources. In the return

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

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

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section\n(1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of\nconversion by the owner of a capital asset into, or its\ntreatment by him as stock-in-trade of a business carried on\nby him shall be chargeable to income-tax as his income of\nthe previous year in which

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

37,47,06,373/- out\nof which a sum of Rs. 36,78,25,373/- was claimed as income chargeable\nto tax at a special rate other than 115BBE of the Act. The income\ntaxable at special rate included the following:\nLong term capital gain taxable at 20%\nRs. 22,57,78,095/-\nShort term capital loss taxable

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

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

2. The second issues that emanates from this agreement is that the appellant has transferred 3 flats by virtue of supplementary agreement dated 23.2.2004. Hence, there is a short term capital gain that is arising for the AY 2004¬05 on account of the transfer of these 3 fiats by this supplementary agreements. The cost of these flats are ascertainable

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

2. The second issues that emanates from this agreement is that the appellant has transferred 3 flats by virtue of supplementary agreement dated 23.2.2004. Hence, there is a short term capital gain that is arising for the AY 2004¬05 on account of the transfer of these 3 fiats by this supplementary agreements. The cost of these flats are ascertainable

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

2. The second issues that emanates from this agreement is that the appellant has transferred 3 flats by virtue of supplementary agreement dated 23.2.2004. Hence, there is a short term capital gain that is arising for the AY 2004¬05 on account of the transfer of these 3 fiats by this supplementary agreements. The cost of these flats are ascertainable