M/S. HANUMANTHAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gain arises out of compulsory acquisition of land by KIADB for BMRCL project is not taxable though it was acquired under KIAD Act, 1966. The CIT(A) though observed that the assessee cannot make fresh claim without filing return of income, he decided the issue on merit also, by dismissing the claim of the assessee. Being

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

24,000 vide sale deed dated 23.06.2014 and computed the long term capital gain at Rs. 41,08,845 and offered the same for taxation. The property sold was an apartment constructed by Brigade Enterprises Pvt Ltd. in pursuance of the agreement executed on 29.06.2006 Subsequently a sale deed was executed on 17.05.2010 In Accordance with the agreement dated

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 48(2) of the Act, according to the assessee. Accordingly, the capital gains for transfer of property to M/s. Gopalan Enterprises is required to be computed by giving a reasonable expenditure towards fencing and also by reducing Rs.3,30,29,479 from capital gains as computed by the AO. 21. The ld. DR submitted that the original agreement dated

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

capital gain arised out of this\ntransaction. Accordingly, he gave direction to the ld. AO to examine\nthe claim made by the assessee as compulsory acquisition under\nRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land\nAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In our\nopinion, the property has been acquired under KIADB Act, 1966 for\nMetro\nvide its notification\nwork

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

24 Guntas or 5,92,416 sq. ft, the cost of acquisition works out to Rs.45.91 per Sq.ft. The computation as adopted in the above-mentioned assessment order for the AY 2007-08 are given below for ease of reference and convenience- Particulars Amount (In Rs.) Sale Consideration for 38.5% of Super Built up 13,94,60,000.00 Area

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

24 Guntas or 5,92,416 sq. ft, the cost of acquisition works out to Rs.45.91 per Sq.ft. The computation as adopted in the above-mentioned assessment order for the AY 2007-08 are given below for ease of reference and convenience- Particulars Amount (In Rs.) Sale Consideration for 38.5% of Super Built up 13,94,60,000.00 Area

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

section 12B(2) applies and the Income-tax\nOfficer must take into account the full value of\nthe consideration for the transfer.\nFourthly, a related objection has been\nraised in Para 9 of your letter dated\n02.06.2014. You have stated that, “full value\nof consideration cannot be construed as\nhaving a reference to the market value of the\nasset transferred

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

gains in case of depreciable assets and is applicable only to capital assets forming part of Block of Assets on which depreciation has been allowed under the Act. and also only for the purposes of sections 48 and 49 of the Act. 24

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, it seems to us that the income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. A person may construct a house according to his plans, requirements and compulsions. A person may construct a residential house in such a manner that he may use the ground floor

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

section. In such a case, when the asset is sold and the consideration is brought to tax, what is charged is the capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. Page 24

SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

24,650 respectively was credited to her account. Another sum of Rs.18,12,528 was also credited as interest on capital in her capital account. After reducing the Partner’s drawing and other payments made the balance to the credit of Assessee’s capital account was Rs.2,77,88,200/-. The difference between the sum of Rs.3

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

24,56,600 which was not disputed because this is the sum brought to tax as capital gain (long term) in the reassessment proceedings. Page 5 of 11 7. The assessee submitted that it had utilised the capital gain for purchase of another agricultural land and paid the following sums to the following persons under agreement for sale:- a) Sale

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

24) of the Act includes gains chargeable under section 45 of the Act and therefore erred in law to conclude that gains arising on buy-back of shares is taxable under section 46A of the Act and not under section 45 of the Act which is the charging section to bring capital

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

24) of the Act includes gains chargeable under section 45 of the Act and therefore erred in law to conclude that gains arising on buy-back of shares is taxable under section 46A of the Act and not under section 45 of the Act which is the charging section to bring capital

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

24 of 66 the date of conversion order, the conversion itself becomes questionable. In fact, the land which was hitherto agricultural land does not automatically become a capital asset on the mere fact of conversion to non-agricultural purpose. The land even though converted for non- agricultural purpose continues to be agricultural land and does not become capital asset

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

capital gain. The intention of the Legislature or the purpose with which the said provision has been incorporated in the Act, is also very clear that the assessee should be given some relief. Though it has been very often said that common sense is a stranger and an incompatible partner to the Income Tax Act and it is also said

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

gains which arose on the sale of the said lands was wrongly offered in the original return in as much as the same was exempt from tax being agricultural lands and hence excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' as per the provisions of s. 2 (14)(iii) of the Act. Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore Page

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act." It can thus be seen that the entire issue was clarified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its abovementioned two circulars dated October 15, 1986 and December 16, 1993. In terms of such clarifications, the date of allotment would be the date on which the purchaser of a residential