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. 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

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

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

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 UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains that will be liable to tax, there is no question of painting the arrangement as colourable device. When the subject income has already been offered to tax by the Trust whereby exemptions have been claimed, the lower authorities have failed to establish the reason why the very same income has to be once again considered in the hands

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

capital gain is charged in the hands of the assessee which is not correct in view of the provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act. He submitted the fact that assessee is individual and wife of Shri. Rajesh Gundu Rao who gifted the property to the wife which is being sold. Shri. Rajesh Gundu Rao acquired part

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

239 23,94,26,383 28,94,66,747 Assessed income Note-1: ITA No.531 & 532/Bang/2024 M/s. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore Page 10 of 36 Profit after tax @10% of the turnover 18,05,06,835 10.00% should have been Less: Double counting of cash 2,19,16,087 receipts as the same is recorded in our normal

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. MR. SUNDARA DEREBAIL POOJARY, MANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2011-12

section that the assessee will become eligible when the capital gains, arisen out of sale of buildings or land appurtenant thereto and being a residential house, invested in a residential house. In the instant case the assessee has, in lieu of land and building handed over to the builders, received two flats, i.e residential units and a part in another

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

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ICICI EMERGING SECTOR FUND,, BANGALORE

In the result, all the thirteen appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

gains from a trust are receivable. Section 41 having provided for two alternative methods, namely, either to tax the income in the hands of the trustees or directly in the hands of the person on whose behalf the income was receivable under the trust, and one of them having been availed of by the Income-tax Department

MISS CHAYA MURTHY D/O LATE V K MURTHY ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2015-16 Ms. Chaya Murthy, D/O. Late V.K. Murthy, The Deputy No. 1/6, 10Th A Cross, Gh Layout, Commissioner Of Lic Colony, Jayanagar 3Rd Block Vs. Income Tax, East, Circle 5 (2) (1), Bangalore – 560 004. Bangalore. Pan: Ahdrc4706F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019

239/- as against the capital gains declared of Rs,8,39,26,861/-. As such there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Assessing Officer since the sale deeds are in the names of three persons, the Assessing Officer has rightly allowed 1/3rd of the claim u/s. 54 of the Act. The grounds of appeal are not allowed

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

239,365 1/5th of 5% of capital employed (claim allowable 5. 79,247,872* consequent to Tribunal’s order) * As against the claim of INR 1,172,873 computed by the ld. AO. We direct the AO to examine the above and allow relief as in earlier years, since claim is arising in earlier years. With this, this ground

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

capital gains by adopting deemed sale consideration at Rs. 26,89,99,677/-. However, the assessee has failed to do so. It has also been seen that the assessee has furnished incorrect details regarding sale consideration of one property sold and declared in the ITR as per the provisions of section 50C of the Income

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ICICI EMERGING SECTORS FUND, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

239 (SC) wherein, in the context of assessment of income of an AOP, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that income has to be brought to tax in the hands of right person. The Assessee had before the AO relied on the following judicial pronouncements in support of its stand that there was no AOP in existence

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S INDIA ADVANTAGE FUND I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

239 (SC) wherein, in the context of assessment of income of an AOP, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that income has to be brought to tax in the hands of right person. The Assessee had before the AO relied on the following judicial pronouncements in support of its stand that there was no AOP in existence

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ICICI EMERGING SECTORS FUND, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

239 (SC) wherein, in the context of assessment of income of an AOP, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that income has to be brought to tax in the hands of right person. The Assessee had before the AO relied on the following judicial pronouncements in support of its stand that there was no AOP in existence

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ICICI EMERGING SECTOR FUND, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

239 (SC) wherein, in the context of assessment of income of an AOP, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that income has to be brought to tax in the hands of right person. The Assessee had before the AO relied on the following judicial pronouncements in support of its stand that there was no AOP in existence