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

2,74,00,000/-, and claimed exemption under section 54 amounting to Rs. 1,64,74,870/-. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54 as the assessee has not utilized the capital gains for the purchase or construction of new asset, and also that the assessee has not deposited the capital gains for construction

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

6 of 16 8.1 The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 112 and a case law compilation having pages 174 to 205 and submitted that section 70(2) clearly permits set-off of short-term capital loss against income under the head “Capital gains

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

6 of 34\nSurvey charges\nEvaluation and speculation of JD\nJD Agreement\nDesign and inspection\n11,251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n11,251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long\nTerm

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

6,89,11,624\nRs.89,15,48,164\n3.6 Accordingly, they stated that they would be offering capital\ngains for the assessment year 2018-19 on the above basis in course\nof assessment proceedings after receipt of notice.\n3.7 Both these persons had accordingly filed returns in response\nto notice u/s.153C of the Act offering capital gains by adopting

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

6 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nother sources, and therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of\nthe Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Tumkur Merchants\nSouharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. ITO (230 Taxman 309), was dealing\nwith a case where deduction u/s.80P(2

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

6,89,11,624\nRs.89,15,48,164\n3.6 Accordingly, they stated that they would be offering capital\ngains for the assessment year 2018-19 on the above basis in course\nof assessment proceedings after receipt of notice.\n3.7 Both these persons had accordingly filed returns in response\nto notice u/s.153C of the Act offering capital gains by adopting

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

6 of 33 the landowners transferred 61.50% of their ownership in the land in lieu of 38.50% of the Super Built up Area in the form of villas. The assesses’s share in the flats to be received as part of the JDA was 15% of the Super Built up Area (SBA). The capital gain arising

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

6 of 33 the landowners transferred 61.50% of their ownership in the land in lieu of 38.50% of the Super Built up Area in the form of villas. The assesses’s share in the flats to be received as part of the JDA was 15% of the Super Built up Area (SBA). The capital gain arising

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

6 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nother sources, and therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of\nthe Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Tumkur Merchants\nSouharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. ITO (230 Taxman 309), was dealing\nwith a case where deduction u/s.80P(2

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

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstance of the case. 8. The appellant craves

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstance of the case. 8. The appellant craves

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

sections (2) and (3) by the Finance (No. 2) Act 1967 with effect from 1st April, 1968 : (2) Where in respect of any assessment year, the net result of the computation under any head of income, other than 'Capital gains', is a loss and the assessee has income assessable under the head 'Capital gains', such loss may, subject

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

6) The provisions of sub-section (8) and plant or furniture used for the purposes of the sub-section (9) of section 80-I shall, so far business of the undertaking in the previous as may be, apply in relation to the year relevant to such assessment year or any industrial undertaking referred to in this expenditure incurred

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

section 47(xiii) proviso (a) or (c) of the Act and therefore, the order of the AO treating the value of the assets and liabilities of the firm, as capital gain obtained by way of transfer of capital asset liable to be taxed under the head long term capital gains u/s 45(4) of the Act is not sustainable

UDAYA SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

gains or capital arising from the business of carrying on banking activities or providing credit facilities to its members, then the interest income earned therefrom shall be treated as business income attributable to such activity and the assessee shall be allowed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in accordance with law. However, if it is found

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)(v) of the Act. In such circumstances, the\nessential conditions of transfer having not been satisfied,\nthere can be no charge of capital gains under Section 45(1)\nof the Act in this assessment year.\n9. We also note that during reassessment proceedings, the\nassessee had submitted photographs showing that the\nproject was still under construction, which substantiates