ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS.ANITHA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

capital gains require to be recomputed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MONICA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

capital gains require to be recomputed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MARGRIT GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

capital gains require to be recomputed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

section 234 B 234 C of the Act for verification of the correctness of the charge of interest. 13. The Appellant hereby denies every contention taken by the Ld Assessing Officer against him in the impugned order of assessment, which has not been specifically addressed. The contentions taken by the Ld Assessing Officer are not factually correct and require

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains and not income from business arising from adventure in the nature of trade:- ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s. ETA Star Infopark, Bangalore Page 15 of 73 (i) CIT v. Razia Sulaiman, ITA No. 412 of 2007 dated 19.09.2011 (Karn. HC) (ii) CIT vs Smt.Suparna Mahesh ITA No.3232 of 2005 dated 8-2- 2011 (Karn.HC) (iii) CIT v. M/s. Bagmane Developers

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains and not income from business arising from adventure in the nature of trade:- ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s. ETA Star Infopark, Bangalore Page 15 of 73 (i) CIT v. Razia Sulaiman, ITA No. 412 of 2007 dated 19.09.2011 (Karn. HC) (ii) CIT vs Smt.Suparna Mahesh ITA No.3232 of 2005 dated 8-2- 2011 (Karn.HC) (iii) CIT v. M/s. Bagmane Developers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

Capital Gains' as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anarkali Sarabai (supra) and Karthikeya Sarabai (supra) and is not exempt ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 22 of 31 from tax. Further the investment in preference shares is to be regarded as an investment in an unlisted and unquoted security and is therefore definitely exigible

M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), BANGLAOORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

Capital Gains' as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anarkali Sarabai (supra) and Karthikeya Sarabai (supra) and is not exempt ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 22 of 31 from tax. Further the investment in preference shares is to be regarded as an investment in an unlisted and unquoted security and is therefore definitely exigible

SRI. H.R. DIWAKA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

section 54E[2] of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. 6. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234-B and 234- D of the Act, which under the facts

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

capital gains assessed for the assessment year 2006-07 was misconceived and liable to be deleted. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] failed to Page 3 of 37 appreciate the consideration for the transfer of undivided interest in land upon joint development ought to have been determined based on the guideline value of the extent

SRI ANJANEYALU PRATHIPATHI,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Years: 2012-13

234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case deserves to be cancelled. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your assessee humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the assessee may be awarded

SHRI. K V SATISH BABU [HUF],MYSURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2[1], MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

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

section 2[47][v] of the Act were not applicable to the appellant's case for the year under appeal since the appellant had given possession over the agricultural lands to the Developer on 20/12/2012 that too after conversion of the said lands for nonagricultural purposes on 03/12/2012 and accordingly, the appellant had recognized transfer of the capital assets

SHRI LINGARAJU BANGALORE LINGAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. O.P Meena

Gains u/s 54G. 8. The Appellant denies the interest u/s 234 of the Act as there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned AO. Further. Interest u/s 234A has been levied without taking into account that the original return is filed Page 3 of 13 ITA 2892/Bang/2018 A. Y : 2014 - 15 within due date. Without prejudice

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

capital gains, which finding is based on erroneous appreciation of the facts and law and hence, the assessment of income under the head "Business" ought to have been vacated. 3.1 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the aforesaid sale of site in the layout formed by the appellant was the only transaction done by the appellant and there