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

22, wherein it was held that short term capital loss arising from STT-paid transactions is allowable to be set off against other capital gains, even if taxed at different rates. 6.5 The assessee therefore argued that it was legally entitled to set off the short-term capital loss of Rs. 16,28,978 against long term capital gains

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

22 is the remaining proportionate cost of Rs. 1,04,72,000/- to be considered for deduction while calculating the capital gains. Since the actual cost of acquisition amounting to Rs.1,04,72,000/- (assesses’s share 15% amounting to Rs.15,70,800/-) is not in dispute however, we feel that the exclusion of cost of acquisition of the area

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

22 is the remaining proportionate cost of Rs. 1,04,72,000/- to be considered for deduction while calculating the capital gains. Since the actual cost of acquisition amounting to Rs.1,04,72,000/- (assesses’s share 15% amounting to Rs.15,70,800/-) is not in dispute however, we feel that the exclusion of cost of acquisition of the area

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 50D of the Act is as\nunder:\n"Capital gains are calculated on\ntransfer of a capital asset, as sale\nconsideration minus cost of acquisition. In\nsome recent rulings, it has been held that\nwhere the consideration in respect of transfer\nof an asset is not determinable under the\nexisting provisions of the Income-tax Act,\nthen

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

gains and business profits which are chargeable to tax under section 45(4). Therefore, the word ‘otherwise’ takes into its sweep not only cases of dissolution but also cases of subsisting partners of a partnership, transferring assets in favour of a retiring partner. Even in this situation it is only the firm that is liable

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

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

22. We have considered the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee and are of the view that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have examined the claim of assessee that the capital gain on sale of land & building should be bifurcated by considering the land as a separate capital asset and computed as long term capital gain

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

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. The learned DR submitted that the AO in the proceedings after the order of the Tribunal remanding the issue on taxability of receipt on transfer

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

22,57,78,095/-\nShort term capital loss taxable at 15%\n(Rs. 16,28,978/-)\nBrought forward loss\n(Rs. 5,81,89,743/-)\nA. Net Long term capital gain taxable 20%\nRs. 16,59,57,374/-\nB. Long term capital gain taxable at 10%\nRs. 4,14,432/-\nC. Dividend Income u/s 115BBDA

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. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made to the income of the Page 22 of 66 assessee under the head 'Capital Gains

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gains’. In this regard, we first take note of these facts as to when and why the provisions of section 46A were inserted on the statute book. We find as under:- “Sec. 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 was amended to enable a company to purchase its own shares [or other "specified securities" as defined in the Explanation

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gains’. In this regard, we first take note of these facts as to when and why the provisions of section 46A were inserted on the statute book. We find as under:- “Sec. 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 was amended to enable a company to purchase its own shares [or other "specified securities" as defined in the Explanation

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

22. In addition to the fact that the term “transfer” has been defined under Section 2(47) of the Act, even if looked at the provisions of Section 54 of the Act which gives relief to a person who has transferred his one residential house and is purchasing another residential house either before one year of the transfer or even

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

22 of 66 No.1169 to 1172/Bang/2015, order dated 27.5.2016 in the case of Shri M.R. Anandaram (HUF) & Ors. wherein it was held as under:- “9. But in the instant case, the issue in dispute is with regard to chargeability of the capital gain on the impugned transaction. Our attention was drawn to the order of the Tribunal in the connected

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

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

capital gain. The said section does not exclude the cost of land from the cost of residential house. 22. It is axiomatic

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.

capital gain. The said section does not exclude the cost of land from the cost of residential house. 22. It is axiomatic

PRASHANTH PRAKASH,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I,.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2009-10

22,14,080 7. The Assessing Officer accepted the aforesaid claim of the assessee. The only objection of the AO was with regard to claim of assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs.7,82,394 which was interest paid on borrowing, which was claimed as deduction while computing long term capital gain on sale of land. According

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

capital gain working that were offered to tax (pg.145 of the PB) and also the balance sheet of the assessee where the amount received from the developer is reflected on the liabilities side to demonstrate that there is no undisclosed income with respect to the sale of flats. The ld AR further submitted that the new subsection 5A inserted