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

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

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

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

22,654/- only. The assessee opted to set off the income Page 2 of 8 from other sources against the business loss and carry forward the unabsorbed business loss of Rs. 46,04,890/-. The capital gains were separately offered to tax, and the assessee discharged the applicable tax liability of Rs. 3,58,312/-. However, the Centralized Processing Center

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

capital gains in construction of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of Section 54 of the Act.” 7.3 Further, it is worthwhile here to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy reported in (1979) 120 ITR 46hasheld that the ordinary meaning of word “purchase

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

gain on the transfer of capital asset. In the present case, the assessee purchased the residential site and used portion of net sale consideration for construction of new house and not appropriated the balance sale consideration either in investment in construction of residential house or deposit into account notified by the Central Govt. to avail exemption u/s. 54. Hence

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 gains in construction of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of Section 54 of the Act.” 7.3 Further, it is worthwhile here to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax IT(IT)A No.235/Bang/2025 Navjyoti Sharma, Bangalore Page 11 of 14 v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy reported

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

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

gain\nwhich arises from the transfer of a capital asset, which\ncould be brought to tax under Section 45 read with Section\n48 of the Income Tax Act.\n13. The assessee in the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the\nappeal late before the Tribunal has also mentioned the\nfactual aspects and the legal dispute and has stated on oath

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

22-01-1997 of the Honourable Supreme Court in\nthe case of M/S. Oriental Trading co. Ltd. vs. CIT(A)- 224 ITR 371\nwithout appreciating the fact that the said decision was\ndistinguishable on facts and circumstances of the case of the\nappellant.\n7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, MANGALORE vs. SHRI.P.M.A.RAZAK, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains arising before the1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression "accumulated profits" in sub- clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those sub- clauses

SHANTHA ALIAS SHANTHAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

capital gains to\ntax in the relevant assessment years in accordance with the prevailing\nlaw. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139 of the\nAct for A.Y. 2020–21 declaring total income of ₹4,46,26,820/-, which\nincluded gain from the sale of flats. The return was duly processed\nunder section

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

section 14A of the Act to the file of the learned CIT(A) for reconsideration. 10. The learned CIT(A), vide order dated 30-03-2024, once again decided the issue of capital gains and business income from the JDA in favor of the assessee, following the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains on the following grounds: a. That the payment encashed on 04.02.2015 towards sale consideration has been received by the appellant long after the date of agreement to sell i.e., 15.10.2014 and that the second proviso to section 50C of the Act will be applicable only if the payment is received on or before the agreement. b. That