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

2(47), 45 and 48 of the Income\nTax Act and also took note of the provisions of section\n2(47)(vi) of the Act and vide para 27 held that the income\nfrom capital gains

MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

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

gains.\n13. Section 2(47)(v) defines a transfer as follows:\n“Definitions.\n2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, —\n(47) \"transfer\", in relation to a capital asset, includes,—\n(i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset ; or\n(ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein ; or\n(iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under

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-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

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 permitted

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

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 is only

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

47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to bring 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 is only

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

2(47)(v) of the Act on the day on which the JDSA was entered into and accordingly the capital gain has to be taxed in that financial year only". Considering the fact that the JDA signed on 16.09.2010 had given specific rights to the developer in Para 5.1 that, the owner gives permission to the developer to enter upon

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

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

VI-A) (Business ITR).\n\n9.2 Accordingly, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the\nassessee seeking certain information and documents. In response\nto the same, the assessee made its submissions by a letter dated\n15.02.2021. The assessee society claims that the deduction u/s\n80P(2)(d) on the interest earned from FDs with other co-operative

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

VI-A, which, in turn, deals with "Deductions in respect of certain incomes". The headnote to section 80P indicates that the said section deals with deductions in respect of income of co-operative Societies. Section 80P(1), inter alia, states that where the gross total income of a co-operative Society includes any income from one or more specified activities

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

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

vi. Unreported decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raheja Development Corporation. 16. The CIT(Appeals) accepted the submissions of the assessee and deleted the disallowance by holding that – 8.1 I find strength in the argument of the appellant that for a bad debt to be allowed as a written off, it is enough if the appellant

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

vi. Unreported decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raheja Development Corporation. 16. The CIT(Appeals) accepted the submissions of the assessee and deleted the disallowance by holding that – 8.1 I find strength in the argument of the appellant that for a bad debt to be allowed as a written off, it is enough if the appellant

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

vi. Unreported decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raheja Development Corporation. 16. The CIT(Appeals) accepted the submissions of the assessee and deleted the disallowance by holding that – 8.1 I find strength in the argument of the appellant that for a bad debt to be allowed as a written off, it is enough if the appellant

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

vi. Unreported decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raheja Development Corporation. 16. The CIT(Appeals) accepted the submissions of the assessee and deleted the disallowance by holding that – 8.1 I find strength in the argument of the appellant that for a bad debt to be allowed as a written off, it is enough if the appellant

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

vi. Unreported decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raheja Development Corporation. 16. The CIT(Appeals) accepted the submissions of the assessee and deleted the disallowance by holding that – 8.1 I find strength in the argument of the appellant that for a bad debt to be allowed as a written off, it is enough if the appellant

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

47,70,118\n16\n2,52,90,000\nNot declared\n2,52,90,000\n3.\n21/08/15\n2633/2015- 99,88,323\n16\n3,46,80,000\n99,88,300\n2,46,91,677\n4.\n07/12/15\n5031/2015- 28,49,497\n16\n2,90,00,000\nNot declared\n2,90,00,000\n5.\n05/02/16\n6467/2015-

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: . ITA No.1495 - 1499/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 15 "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