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

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

gains chargeable to tax so far as such interest on housing loan on acquisition of capital asset is not claimed as deduction u/s 24(b) by the assessee, and that is what the assessee is also now contending, albeit without prejudice. Thus, the AO is required to verify whether or not interest on housing loan on the acquisition of capital

SHRI. K V SATISH BABU [HUF],MYSURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2[1], MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

Gains upholding the view that the date of entering into the joint development agreement i.e., 16/09/2010 would be the date of transfer of the said capital asset under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the provision of section 2[47][v

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, capital gains were not taxable in the year of JDA. The Tribunal also found that the sale of flats constituted capital gains, not business income, and allowed the deduction of costs of improvement and selling expenses.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

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

gain which arises from the alleged transfer of capital\nasset could be brought to tax under section 45 r.w.s.48 of\nthe Act. We hold so. The grounds of appeal raised by\nassessee are thus, allowed.\n27. This brings us to another aspect of the matter as to whether\nthe provisions of Section 2(47)(v

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital gain on a “deemed" basis by\nestimating the cost of construction of the assessee's share of flats at\n₹1,000 per sq. ft., leading to an addition of ₹3,59,10,000 as long-term\ncapital gain in the year under consideration.\n\n16.2 We note that the provisions of section 2(47)(v

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

2(47) of the Act defines the transfer in relation to a capital asset. Section 45 of the Act deals with the profits or gains arising out of the transfer of the capital asset and treated the same as deemed income. Admittedly, in this case, there is a transfer of capital asset owned by the firm during the previous year

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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains into tax in the assessment

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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains into tax in the assessment

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

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

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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to bring the capital gains into tax in the assessment

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 gains-Special\nprovision for computation of full value consideration (General)\n Assessment year 2013-14. Whether where assessee claims that\nvalue adopted or assessed or assessable by stamp valuation\nauthority exceeds fair market value of property and has raised\nspecific dispute before Assessing Officer that stamp valuation of\nproperty sold was not its \"fair market value, it is, bounden

SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

section 2(47) of the act in support of his contention. 4.6 The Ld.AR heavily relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. CIT reported in (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that, in the case of acquiring a share, the date of acquisition

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

47 has held that provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act is to be\nread as a proviso to section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act which specifically\nallows deduction to Co-operative Societies engaged in the business\nof providing credit facilities to its members and not Co-operative\nBanks. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

47(1), 5. ITA No. 1388/Del/2019ITAT, Delhi "F" Bench Order Dated 14th May 2019 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that before the CIT(A), he did not appear and not filed any documents, whereas the CIT(A) has given various opportunities to the assessee and he further submitted that

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

47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\n20\n(Twenty only)\nEmployees\nCO-OP. S\nChamarajpet\nBangalore-18\nOTARY*\nZ/MAMATHAN.K\n* BALLB.\nBENGALURU\nINDIA\nGOVT