SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

251 CTR 371 took the view that, under provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 47(xiii) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition made under the head capital gains and in respect of the ground No.6, which relates to the levy of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) had remitted the issue to the file of AO for recomputing

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Rajamahal Vilas Extension Bangalore 560 080 Pan No: Aaaha3885P Appellant

251 1,05,150 45,00,000 5,61,800 [C] 1,12,92,691 Total Long Term Capital Gains 1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long Term Capital Gains [D] 29,21,90,606 | [D] | 54,28,86,124 14,60,95,303 27,14,43,062 3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Rajamahal Vilas Extension Bangalore 560 080 Pan No: Aaана3885P Appellant

251 1,05,150 45,00,000 5,61,800 [C] 1,12,92,691 1,12,92,691 Total Long Term Capital Gains 1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long Term Capital Gains [D] 29,21,90,606 [D] 14,60,95,303 54,28,86,124 27,14,43,062 3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Rajamahal Vilas Extension Bangalore 560 080 Pan No : Aaана3885P Appellant

251 1,05,150 45,00,000 5,61,800 [C] 1,12,92,691 1,12,92,691 Total Long Term Capital Gains 1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long Term Capital Gains [D] 29,21,90,606 [D] 14,60,95,303 54,28,86,124 27,14,43,062 3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held

M/S.FABSUN ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAILUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 54G of the Act permits the use of capital gains for acquiring land or building or constructing building for the purposes of (any) business in the non-urban area. 12. "For the purpose of business" was interpreted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

SRI. M N SHESHAGIRI,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

251(1) of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to total income or Rs.38,22,410/- as against the returned income of Rs. 3,64,610/- on the facts

SRI. K. RAJANNA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.928/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sri K. Rajanna, Hoovadigara Beedhi, Hosuru Bagilu, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Dist. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.9.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore Dt.24.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 2.4.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.13,43,590 From Business & Long Term Capital Gains (‘Ltcg’). The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act'). The Assessing Officer Observed That On Verification Of The Return Of Income, It Was Seen That The Assessee Was In Receipt Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.3,38,00,000 From Sale Of 12 Flats Received From The Developer Consequent To A Joint Development Agreement (‘Jda’)

Capital Gains relating to the deemed transfer of 60% of undivided portion of the land were chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2008-09 without appreciating the fact that the transfer of land arose in the year ending 31.3.2006 relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07, in view of the JDA and GPA dt.18.1.2006 as required under Section

SRI HANUMANTHIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

251 sq.ft. of super built up area. The assessee has also received non- fundable deposit of Rs.14,41,778/-. Since the assessee did not declare any capital gain on account of entering into JDA, the A.O. reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income- tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. 3. Before A.O., the assessee contended

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Capital Gains. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in holding the appellant is not entitled to exemption u/s. 548 of the Act. 8. The ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition made on account of sale of Agrl. Land, as was shown in the return of income filed u/s. said transaction

M/S SHYAMARAJU & CO (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains, since it is agricultural land. However, during the course of hearing, the learned AR did not press this ground. Similarly, in directors appeal (Sri.P.Shyamaraju and Sri.Umesh S. Raju) grounds are raised with regard to the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the I.T.Act. This ground also the learned AR did not press during the course of hearing

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SHYAMARAJU & CO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains, since it is agricultural land. However, during the course of hearing, the learned AR did not press this ground. Similarly, in directors appeal (Sri.P.Shyamaraju and Sri.Umesh S. Raju) grounds are raised with regard to the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the I.T.Act. This ground also the learned AR did not press during the course of hearing