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

234D of the Act. 8. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” 2. Ground Nos.1 to 5 relate to nature of capital gain accrued to the assessee on sale of flat acquired from

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

M/S MHM HOLDINGS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Mhm Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Range - 12 Bengaluru No. 52, Bassappa Road Shantinagar Bengaluru 560027 Pan – Aabcm6614L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Parthasarathi, Adv. Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M.

Section 50B of the Act as per the detailed computation given below: - Provisional purchase price in respect of capacitors 116,00,00,000 division Less Adjustment in purchase price as given in Pg. 1,74,16,651 No. 15 of the agreement Final purchase price in respect of capacitors division 114,25,83,349 Add Purchase price in respect

SHRI.N.R.RAVIKRISHNAN,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2007-08

capital gains" (i) Exemption under section 54EC be allowed; and (ii) Interest under section 234D be deleted. (iii) Page 4 of 6 2. During

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

capital gains is excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be reduced substantially. 13. The learned Commissioner (A) erred in levying the interest u/s.234B and 234D of the Act. 14. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 2. At the time

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 54 of the Act 77,14,409/- 17, The Learned CIT(A) erred in failing to direct the Assessing Officer to give credit for the sum of Rs.77,14,409/- out of the sum of Rs.79,73,867/- being the Prepaid Taxes for A.Y.2015-16 when the AO has brought to tax the Long-Term Capital A.Y.2014-15 which is Gains

M/S AGNUS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital Gains nor would that create any title over the property in favour of the builder. 4. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating that in the afore-said facts and circumstances, there was no question of any `Transfer' as per S.2(47) of the Income- tax Act and therefore, the addition as made

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

Gains’ and not ‘Business Income’. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed. 8. Ground No.4 (for Assessment Year 2012-13) Exemption under section 54F of the Act 8.1 In respect of this ground (supra), the learned AR submitted that the assessee had acquired a flat at Malnad Residency, Bangalore vide sale deed dated

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

Gains’ and not ‘Business Income’. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed. 8. Ground No.4 (for Assessment Year 2012-13) Exemption under section 54F of the Act 8.1 In respect of this ground (supra), the learned AR submitted that the assessee had acquired a flat at Malnad Residency, Bangalore vide sale deed dated

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

Gains’ and not ‘Business Income’. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed. 8. Ground No.4 (for Assessment Year 2012-13) Exemption under section 54F of the Act 8.1 In respect of this ground (supra), the learned AR submitted that the assessee had acquired a flat at Malnad Residency, Bangalore vide sale deed dated

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

Gains’ and not ‘Business Income’. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed. 8. Ground No.4 (for Assessment Year 2012-13) Exemption under section 54F of the Act 8.1 In respect of this ground (supra), the learned AR submitted that the assessee had acquired a flat at Malnad Residency, Bangalore vide sale deed dated

SRI DINESH DEVRAJ RANKA,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-8,, BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain to the total income is unjust in the eye of law. 6. The learned CIT (A) wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.4,85,831/- by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. 7. The learned CIT (A) erred in relying on the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of M/s.John Distilleries

SHRI. GANGAHANUMAIAH LAKSHMINARAYANA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

section 2(47) of the Act the appellant is liable to be assessed under the head Capital v) Gains the appellant is not eligible for deduction u/s 54B/54F of the vi) Act. The conclusions drawn are contrary to both facts and law applicable are to be disregarded and the addition as made/confirmed is to be deleted. 6. In any case

SRI.SYED FAZAL AHMED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13

section 50C[2] of the Act, consequently, the addition made requires to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs.3,00,567/- and Rs.81,362/- being the interest claimed while computing the capital gains as part of the cost of acquisition under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

DR.SYED RAHMATULLAH AZIZULLAH ,GULBARGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 , KALABURAGI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

234D of the Act be also deleted.” 3. Similarly, the grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 in ITA No. 241/Bang/2019 are as under. “1. The learned Assessing Officer had erred in passing the order in the manner passed by himand the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the same. The orders passed being bad inlaw