SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

251 CTR 371 took the view that, under provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains realised from sale of capital asset should have been parted by assessee and invested or constructed a residential house, as the case may be. Hon’ble court also observed that, the essence of the purpose of section

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 realised from sale of capital asset should have been parted by assessee and invested or constructed a residential house, as the case may be. Hon’ble court also observed that, the essence of the purpose of section

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 2

THE BELTHANGADY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SANGHA LIMITED,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

251 ITR 194 vide order dated 22 August 2001 has directed to allow deduction of the same under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced as under: ITA No.1927 & 1943/Bang/2024 Page 11 of 16 There is no doubt, and it is not disputed, that the assessee-co-operative

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

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

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

SANGAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , BAGALKOT

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

251 ITR 0194 (SC) (iv) CIT v. Nawanshahar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. 289 ITR 6 (SC) (v) Bori Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs ITO , ITA NO. 200 & 221/PAN/2019 dated 27.12.2022 (vi) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr.CIT & another vs Totagars Co-operative Sales Society, (2017) 392 ITR 0074 (Karn) 7. On the other

SANGAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1& TPS, BAGALKOT

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

251 ITR 0194 (SC) (iv) CIT v. Nawanshahar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. 289 ITR 6 (SC) (v) Bori Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs ITO , ITA NO. 200 & 221/PAN/2019 dated 27.12.2022 (vi) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr.CIT & another vs Totagars Co-operative Sales Society, (2017) 392 ITR 0074 (Karn) 7. On the other

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

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

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