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

2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005-\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee is only

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

2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee's case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee

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

2,50,000). As per the sharing agreement, the landowners have got UDS (land area) of 1,09,924 sq.ft. So final land cost per sq feet is Rs.92.99 (Rs.1,02,22,000 divided by 109924 sq.ft.) • The COA was erroneously calculated at from 45.85 to 49.74 as cost per sq ft while filing the ITR. The correct COA rate

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

2,50,000). As per the sharing agreement, the landowners have got UDS (land area) of 1,09,924 sq.ft. So final land cost per sq feet is Rs.92.99 (Rs.1,02,22,000 divided by 109924 sq.ft.) • The COA was erroneously calculated at from 45.85 to 49.74 as cost per sq ft while filing the ITR. The correct COA rate

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

2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to bring the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005-\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee's case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain. The deeming provision under Section 50\nC (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable\nproperty may have various attributes, charges. encumbrances,\nlimitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not\ntake into consideration the attributes of the property for determining\nthe fair market value in the condition, the property is offered

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

23,847\n2,15,220\nSubramanyeshwara co-op Bank\nLtd\n2,50,000\nBharat Co-op Bank Ltd\n7,12,500\nGrain Merchant Co-op Bank Ltd\n5,62,500\n1,03,463\nKarnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd\n6,54,856\nVishveshwaraiah Co-op Bank\nLtd\n40,313\nTotal\n2,35,48,628\n45,91,489\n\n13.2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital in the audited balance sheet, it is clear that\nPCARD Banks/ primaries are members of the assessee. This\nis also clear from clause 2(n) of chapter II of the bye laws and\nsection 2(a-1-2) and 2(j-4) of the KCS Act. In fact the first\nlisted object of the assessee is to advance loans

SHARANABASAVESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKRI NI HALINGALI,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

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

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital in the audited balance sheet, it is clear that\nPCARD Banks/ primaries are members of the assessee. This\nis also clear from clause 2(n) of chapter II of the bye laws and\nsection 2(a-1-2) and 2(j-4) of the KCS Act. In fact the first\nlisted object of the assessee is to advance loans

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

capital by the cooperative societies engaged in providing credit facilities to the members is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the ruling of Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd(supra), Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and Lalitamba Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita vs. ITO as well as by the decision

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

capital in the audited balance sheet, it is clear that\nPCARD Banks/ primaries are members of the assessee. This\nis also clear from clause 2(n) of chapter II of the bye laws and\nsection 2(a-1-2) and 2(j-4) of the KCS Act. In fact the first\nlisted object of the assessee is to advance loans

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

SREE CAUVERY SOUHARDA CREDIT SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

gains or capital. ITA No.1854 & 1855/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 23 10.8 It is also noted that the identical view was taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of the Karnataka in the subsequent decision in case of Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Mysore dated 9th June 2015 reported in [2015] 60 taxmann.com

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 gain computation. The ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 4 of 23 CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2007-08 by upholding the addition made towards undisclosed profits from sale of mutual funds. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had raised a legal contention that the AO has assumed jurisdiction u/s. 153C without

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 gain computation. The ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 4 of 23 CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2007-08 by upholding the addition made towards undisclosed profits from sale of mutual funds. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had raised a legal contention that the AO has assumed jurisdiction u/s. 153C without

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 gain computation. The ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 4 of 23 CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2007-08 by upholding the addition made towards undisclosed profits from sale of mutual funds. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had raised a legal contention that the AO has assumed jurisdiction u/s. 153C without