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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AJIT KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kit(It)A No.449/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain on sale of property which is the resulting loss of Rs.43,04,205/-. The AO observed that while filing response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, assessee claimed refund of Rs.2,63,670/-. The AO observed that the reassessment proceedings are for the benefit of the Revenue and not for the benefit of the assessee

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

Section 69A of the Act.The addition is made out on basis of loose sheets of documents, which does not come under the ambit of ‘books of entry’ or as ‘evidence’ under the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: 57  CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410  Common Cause and others Vs. Union of India

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

239 ITR 435 (Mad.) and the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of New Modern Bazaar v. ITO in ITA No.590/Del/2018 (order dated 08.04.2021) decided the issue against the assessee and dismissed the appeal. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although such sum was lower than the figure shown by the assessee in his returns of total income." 8.31. In the instant cases, the Shri M.R. Seetharam, has stated that an amount of Rs.102 Crores be offered as income from the construction revenue as discussed above. The reason

MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM,MATHIKERE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although such sum was lower than the figure shown by the assessee in his returns of total income." 8.31. In the instant cases, the Shri M.R. Seetharam, has stated that an amount of Rs.102 Crores be offered as income from the construction revenue as discussed above. The reason

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although such sum was lower than the figure shown by the assessee in his returns of total income." 8.31. In the instant cases, the Shri M.R. Seetharam, has stated that an amount of Rs.102 Crores be offered as income from the construction revenue as discussed above. The reason

DCIT, CC- 2(1), BLR, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although such sum was lower than the figure shown by the assessee in his returns of total income." 8.31. In the instant cases, the Shri M.R. Seetharam, has stated that an amount of Rs.102 Crores be offered as income from the construction revenue as discussed above. The reason

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BENGALURU vs. MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 23 of the said Act with reference to the municipal valuation, although such sum was lower than the figure shown by the assessee in his returns of total income." 8.31. In the instant cases, the Shri M.R. Seetharam, has stated that an amount of Rs.102 Crores be offered as income from the construction revenue as discussed above. The reason

SEETHARAMAIAH VENKATA VEMULA ,BANGLAORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2022-23

capital gain from sale of shares and income from other sources. The assessee filed its return of income on 01.08.2022 that was processed by CPC vide order dated 04.01.2023 u/s. 143(1)(a). It is submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee filed the return on 31.07.2022 however, by the time the acknowledgment was generated, there was a delay

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. 8.13 Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. 8.13 Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

239 (vii) CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 (viii) T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 (ix) CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 4.20 Thus, placing reliance on the seized material is not proper and all the additions on the basis of the above loose slips should be deleted in the assessment year 2015-16 since

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

239 (vii) CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 (viii) T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 (ix) CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 4.20 Thus, placing reliance on the seized material is not proper and all the additions on the basis of the above loose slips should be deleted in the assessment year 2015-16 since

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

239 (vii) CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 (viii) T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 (ix) CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 4.20 Thus, placing reliance on the seized material is not proper and all the additions on the basis of the above loose slips should be deleted in the assessment year 2015-16 since