M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 48(2) of the Act, according to the assessee. Accordingly, the capital gains for transfer of property to M/s. Gopalan Enterprises is required to be computed by giving a reasonable expenditure towards fencing and also by reducing Rs.3,30,29,479 from capital gains as computed by the AO. 21

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 12B(2)\nprovides that the amount of a capital gain\nshall be computed after making certain\ndeductions from the \"full value of the\nconsideration for which the sale, exchange or\ntransfer of the capital asset is made\". In case\nof a sale, the full value of the consideration is\nthe full sale price actually paid. The\nlegislature

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

21,90,606 | [D] | 54,28,86,124\n14,60,95,303\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial\nportion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion. On the other-hand\nboth these persons contended

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

section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We are also of the ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 20 of 33 considered opinion that in case the property is vacant because of inability of the assessee to let out or sale due to the pandemic, then the notional rent

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

section 23(1)(c) of the Act. We are also of the ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 20 of 33 considered opinion that in case the property is vacant because of inability of the assessee to let out or sale due to the pandemic, then the notional rent

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

capital gains was invested in the said two floors, she was eligible for exemption u/s 54. The AO rejected the claim on the basis that the units on the said floors were independent & self-contained and not “a residential house” and granted exemption for only one unit. The CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld the assessee’s claim by relying

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

21,90,606 [D]\n14,60,95,303\n54,28,86,124\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial\nportion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion. On the other-hand\nboth these persons contended

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

capital gain tax. It was only by amendment of section 55 (2)(a) words ‘trade mark or brand name associated with the business’ was introduced. The amendment does have prospective operation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court upheld the view of the Tribunal. 21

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

gains from sale of its capital assets in its return of income. The CIT(A) dismissed the claim of assessee holding as follows:- Page 9 of 13 “ ……. No revised return of income was filed by the assessee. So the claim of the assessee could not have been considered by the AO in view of the binding decision

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

Section 2(47) and the liability to Capital Gains exists. When the partnership firm paid lump-sum amount to the retiring partner, it is paid in consideration of her retirement in Page 3 of 23 the partnership and assignment of her interest to other partners, the transaction would amount to transfer u/s 2(47) of the IT Act. Referring

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

section 2(14) of the Act. According to the Ld. A.R., the sale of agricultural land outside municipal limit is to be treated as agricultural land and should be exempted u/s 10(1) of the Act. However, the A.O. held that, the land was converted for non- agricultural purposes before execution of sale deed, therefore, it is a capital asset

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU vs. M/S. BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

Section 50B(1) of the Income-tax Act also clearly states that any profits or gains arising from the slump sale effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income-tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer

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

21. Now in the light of definition of “transfer” as defined under Section 2(47) of the Act, it is clear that when any right in respect of any capital asset is extinguished and that right is transferred to someone, it would amount to transfer of a capital asset. In the light of the aforestated definition, let us look

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

21. A reading of Section 54(1) makes it amply clear that capital gain is to be adjusted against the cost

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

capital gain. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the above finding of the A.O. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee entered into sale agreement on 15.4.2013 to sell subjected property and the land was got converted as per condition laid down by the purchaser in sale agreement

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

21. A reading of Section 54(1) makes it amply clear that capital gain is to be adjusted against the cost

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

21. We will now adjudicate the issue contended based on merits. On merits, the ld. AR argued that the date of JDA cannot be considered as the date of transfer for the purpose of capital gains since it is the possession given by the assessee to the developer for the purpose of obtaining necessary approval for construction. The actual construction

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

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it had been held that, in a joint development agreement, the relevant date for attracting capital gain is the date on which possession was handed over to the concerned developer, where the complete control over the immovable property to such agreement, which is transferred to such developer, then the date