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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

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

vi) Whether the land, on the relevant date, had ceased to be put to agricultural use, if so, whether it was put to an alternative use; whether such ceaser and / or alterative user was of a permanent or temporary nature; (vii) Whether the land, though entered in the revenue records, had never been actually used for agriculture, that

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

vi) Whether the land, on the relevant date, had ceased to be put to agricultural use, if so, whether it was put to an alternative use; whether such ceaser and / or alterative user was of a permanent or temporary nature; (vii) Whether the land, though entered in the revenue records, had never been actually used for agriculture, that

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

VI deals with the head of income viz. Page 9 of 16 Capital Gains. It provides for Computation of Capital gains and also for exemption available thereunder. Section 54F of the Act introduced into the Act with effect from 1st April, 1983 by the Finance Act, 1982 provides exemption from Capital gain on transfer of any long term capital asset

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

vi) have been inserted in Section 2(47) to prevent avoidance of capital gains liability by recourse to transfer of rights

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

gain is charged to tax in the previous year in which the transfer takes place. Section 2(47) defines what is transfer and it reads as follows : Page 5 of 23 (47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein

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 gains" and, therefore, charged to tax on a concessional basis.' 5.2.2 Similarly, the reason for introduction of clauses (v) and (vi) in the definition of the word "transfer" in Section 2(47

SRI MAHENDRASINGH RAMSINGH JADAV,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

capital gains" and, therefore, charged to tax on a concessional basis.' 6.2 Similarly, the reason for introduction of clauses (v) and (vi) in the definition of the word "transfer" in Section 2(47

M/S AGNUS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain having regard to the definition under section 2(47) of the Act is the date on which possession is handed over by the developer and has observed as follows:- “Under section 2(47)(v), any transaction involving allowing of possession to be taken over or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. NARAYAN MANDYAM VEERABUDHI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

vi) of Section 2(47) of the I T Act, reveals that any transaction by way of agreement or whatsoever or in any manner whatsoever, which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property would get the character of transfer. In the instant case, ITA No.1248 /Bang/2016 Page 4 of 17 even if the date

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

47][v] of the Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act prior to enactment of Section 50-D of the Act which is with effect from 01/04/2013 and consequently, no capital gains was assessable at all from this angle of the matter as well. 10.2 Thirdly and without prejudice to the above, the learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(47)(v) of the Act. It cannot be said that any income accrued to the assessee once we hold that there is no income accrued to the assessee, there is no question of taxing any amount either as capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(47)(v) of the Act. It cannot be said that any income accrued to the assessee once we hold that there is no income accrued to the assessee, there is no question of taxing any amount either as capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(47)(v) of the Act. It cannot be said that any income accrued to the assessee once we hold that there is no income accrued to the assessee, there is no question of taxing any amount either as capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page

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

vi) Technology for design, manufacture, test, quality assurance and servicing for all railway equipments and parts/components thereof as existing with the Vendor as on the date of the transfer whether purchased or self developed including all books, documents, drawings, designs, manuals, etc.” 24. As already stated at no point of time did the Revenue or the Tribunal in its order

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

47)(v) of the I.T .Act. Further, the first proviso to Sec.50C(1) of the Act would support the case of the assessee. Though the proviso was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 1.4.2017, it is only clarificatory in nature. 34. Assuming for argument sake though not conceding, if the date of transfer is considered

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

vi) have been inserted in Section 2(47) to prevent avoidance of capital gains liability by recourse to transfer of rights

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

vi. CIT v. Raunaq Singh Swaran Singh [1972] 85 ITR 220 (Delhi) vii. Bhogilal H. Patel v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 692 (Bombay) viii. CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal [2007] 298 ITR 277 (Madhya Pradesh) ix. CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain [2003] 259 ITR 671 (Punjab & Haryana) x. CIT v. Mohakampur Ice & Cold Storage [2005] 281 ITR 354 (Allahabad

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

47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS. 20. It is also submitted that merely because the Appellant has reflected the above transaction in her income-tax return as being exempt, does not imply that the UAFS results in income under the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the well-settled principles that taxation cannot