DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Rajamahal Vilas Extension Bangalore 560 080 Pan No : Aaана3885P Appellant

221, Upper Palace Orchards Bellary Road Bangalore 560 080 PAN NO: AAАНА3884N RESPONDENT ITA Nos.775 & 954/Bang/2024 Sri Alagappa Muthiah (HUF), Bangalore ITA Nos.776 & 955/Bang/2024 Sri Alagappa Annamalai (HUF), Bangalore Page 2 of 34 Appellant by Respondent by Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 31.07.2024 12.08.2024 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Rajamahal Vilas Extension Bangalore 560 080 Pan No: Aaана3885P Appellant

221, Upper Palace Orchards Bellary Road Bangalore 560 080 PAN NO: AAАНА3884N RESPONDENT Page 2 of 34 Appellant by Respondent by Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 31.07.2024 12.08.2024 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These cross appeals for the assessment year 2017-18 in respect of different assessees are directed against

SRI SURESH.C,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section that is to say,- ………” “Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where – (a) the assessee- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house

M/S K.BABU (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. K. Babu (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2, Dollars Colony, Ward – 7(2)(3), 1St Cross, 2Nd Main, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan: Aaggk 0809 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

221 (Karn). In the context of section 54F which is in para materia under section 54F of the Act, the Hon’ble High Court held as follows: “8. For a proper appreciation of the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to have a careful look at Section 54 of the income Tax Act, which reads as under: 54. Profit on sale

SHRI.T.A.V.GUPTA ,TURUVEKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazshri. T.A.V. Gupta, Birla Corner, B.T. Road, Turuvekere – 572227, Pan: Albpg6202G. . Appellant

capital gain computed is based on the value of 6 flats which the assessee got as his share of built up area under the JDA. The assessee claimed deduct ion u/s 54F of the Act in respect of all the 6 flats. The AO refused to allow the claim for deduction for on the ground that u/s.54F

M/S MARIA SEVA SANGHA,BANGALORE vs. ASST.D,I,T,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

221 PAN No.AXAPS8985P Appellant Vs The Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Udupi Respondent Date of hearing : 13-10-2015 Date of pronouncement : Appellant by : Smt M.R.Vanaja, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT O R D E R PER SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, AM; This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Mysore dated

M/S NITESH ESTATES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

capital gains arising on the payment of Rs 4 crores made by the assessee to the non-resident payee. He accordingly held Assessee to be in default and levied tax & interest liability. 3. Against this assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that assessee was not aware of the fact that

SAI SATHYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) RANGE-17 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Undertakings) Act 1970 to the notice of Ld CIT(A), but the Ld CIT(A) has rejected the same by observing that it is a deeming provision and further Canara Bank is regulated under Banking Regulations Act. However, we find merit in the contention of the assessee and hence we are unable

SMT. NETHRAVATHI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Nethravathi, No.2, 8Th Cross, 1St Main, Sampangiram Nagar, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aafpn6032J. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Warad – 2(3)(3), Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri P Dinesh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : -04-2018 O R D E R

capital gain on transfer of land under JDA was assesseable only in AY 2013-14 i.e., the previous year in which JDA was entered into as per the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of T.K.Dayalu. He however assessed the income declared on a protective basis allowing nil deduction u/s.54F of the Act. 5. Before

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

capital gain. Accordingly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the orders of the authorities below. 13. Ground No.4 is regarding disallowance of deduction under Section 80JJA in respect of workman whose duration of work in a year was less than 300 days. 14. We have heard

SHRI. PANKAJ KAPUR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

capital gains. 4.The learned Commissioner (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of exemption claimed under sec 54F of the Act by the appellant. 5.The learned Commissioner (A) erred in not considering the proof of investment made by the appellant for considering the deduction under sc 54F of the Act. 6.The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that though

MR. MAURICE PATRICK DE REBELLO,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T.Act. As such, assessment year 2009- 2010 is the year of transfer and the income is chargeable in the said assessment year. The Assessing Officer also did not grant the benefit of exemption u/s 54 of the I.T.Act for the entire built up area except for the self-occupied flat of the assessee

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

221 for business purpose. Capital Expenditure. 3.3 The Ld.AO held that the above expenditure claimed by the assessee were not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and therefore were not liable to be allowed. 3.4 Further, the Ld.AO also included Rs. 4,78,40,795/- out of E- auction sale by holding that the assessee was entitled

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

221 for business purpose. Capital Expenditure. 3.3 The Ld.AO held that the above expenditure claimed by the assessee were not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and therefore were not liable to be allowed. 3.4 Further, the Ld.AO also included Rs. 4,78,40,795/- out of E- auction sale by holding that the assessee was entitled

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains arose to the Respondent on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights since there was no cost of acquisition involved from the side of the Respondent. The meaning of the word perquisite for the instant case is given under Section 17(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue alternatively contended that the case of the Respondent should come under