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

Section 48, the language employed is unambiguous. The intention is very clear. When a capital asset is transferred, in order to determine the capital gain from such transfer, what is to be seen is, out of full value of the consideration received or accruing, the cost of acquisition of the asset, the cost of improvement and any expenditure wholly

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 45[5A] of the Act, has been\ninserted that the date of occupancy certificate is relevant for\ndetermining the taxation of capital gains. The appellant has relied\nupon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of N.A. Harris in\nITA No.988/Bang/2018 dated 15/02/2021 specifically para [33] on\npage 200

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

section 71 of the Act), returned a total taxable Income of Rs. 2,59,15,640. 10. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the sale of the leasehold rights over the land that was sold gave rise to long term capital gain (LTCG). That the sale of building was taxable as short term capital gain (STCG

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 45[5A] of the Act, has been\ninserted that the date of occupancy certificate is relevant for\ndetermining the taxation of capital gains. The appellant has relied\nupon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of N.A. Harris in\nITA No.988/Bang/2018 dated 15/02/2021 specifically para [33] on\npage 200

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. C. NARASIMHAIAH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

200/ - which is reinvested by the respondent shall be allowed while computing Long Term Capital Gains. 7 .The learned CIT(A) erred in not reversing the determination of Short Term.,Capital Gains in the case of the respondent by the learned AA which was based on the statement given by Sri. V.Doddappa, the co-owner who admitted for payment

PRADEEP KAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Geoergeassessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain chargeable to tax; however deduction is allowable as per section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. Heavy reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Jindas Panchand Gandhi, 200

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

200/- after claiming various expenses like cost of acquisition, cost of improvement etc. before claiming deduction u/s.54F of Rs.8,28,940/- and arrived at the net capita' gains of Rs.90,44,260/- as against the actual capital Page 5 of 35 gains of Rs.3,34,56,000/- as worked out above. At the time of filing the return of income

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— (a) to (d) .... (e)transactional net margin method, by which,— IT(TP) A No. 270/Bang/2021 Tyco Fire and Security India Pvt.Ltd

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

section 2(47)(v) of the Act and computed the short term capital gain arising out of JDA. Further, during the survey, the assessee was asked to produce details of bills/vouchers and documentary proof for the developmental expenditure charged to the P&L account and consequently statement u/s 133A of the Act from the assessee with the declaration

TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 26. The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G. Patel (supra) is a case where the deed of reconstitution specifically referred to release of rights of the outgoing partners in the assets of the partnership and further

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains of Rs.59,73,467/- claimed under section 54F of IT Act. 3. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding disallowance of exemption under section 54F on the basis that the villa was registered on 21.02.2015 i.e. prior to transfer of original asset i.e. Page 2 of 16 13.11.2015 when section 54F does not bar construction within

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

section 2(42A) of the Act. 21. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts in stating that the money from sale of painting has been received by the Page 6 of 31 Appellant outside through an agent located outside India and the capital gain/ loss has arisen outside India, disregarding the fact that the amount was actually received

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain was not disclosed in the return filed\nfor Assessment Year 2013-14. To assess the income escaped assessment, the\ncase was reopened under section 148 of the Act after obtaining the\napproval/sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3,\nChennai. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on\n30.3.2019 requiring

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain as computed by the assessee amounting to Rs.36,64,791/-. The only dispute in this case is with regard to claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act amounting to Rs.36,64,791/-. The assessee along with his wife Mrs. Lovita Phukan had executed the agreement of purchase for a consideration Rs. 32,14,200/- and construction agreement

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

Gain and disallowed to the Assessee the short term capital loss of Rs. 117,76,40,000 in respect of sale of equity shares of Jupiter Capital Private Limited by the Assessee to M/s Vectra Holdings Private Limited.” 20. In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above and the quantum appeal

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

Gain and disallowed to the Assessee the short term capital loss of Rs. 117,76,40,000 in respect of sale of equity shares of Jupiter Capital Private Limited by the Assessee to M/s Vectra Holdings Private Limited.” 20. In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above and the quantum appeal

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

Gain and disallowed to the Assessee the short term capital loss of Rs. 117,76,40,000 in respect of sale of equity shares of Jupiter Capital Private Limited by the Assessee to M/s Vectra Holdings Private Limited.” 20. In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above and the quantum appeal

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

Gain and disallowed to the Assessee the short term capital loss of Rs. 117,76,40,000 in respect of sale of equity shares of Jupiter Capital Private Limited by the Assessee to M/s Vectra Holdings Private Limited.” 20. In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above and the quantum appeal