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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para 7 of the assessment order, wherein during the course of search operation one agreement of sale

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para 7 of the assessment order, wherein during the course of search operation one agreement of sale

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para 7 of the assessment order, wherein during the course of search operation one agreement of sale

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para 7 of the assessment order, wherein during the course of search operation one agreement of sale

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores which has been discussed by the AO in para 7 of the assessment order, wherein during the course of search operation one agreement of sale

DESIRAZU SUNDARA SIVA RAO,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

253 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid computation of capital gain by both the assessees, they had claimed deduction while computing capital claim exemption under section

NAGARAJ DESIRAZU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

253 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid computation of capital gain by both the assessees, they had claimed deduction while computing capital claim exemption under section

SRI. HAIDER NOMAN KHORAKIWALA,MYSURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

253 ITR 343. In so far as the second observation of the learned AO that the assessee has not deposited capital gains amount in capital gains accounts scheme before the date of furnishing of the return under section

SRI. B.T. DAYANANDA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

section 2(14) of the Act. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on certificate dated 28.11.2011from PWD stating that property is situated beyond 12.6 km from BBMP limits, It has been submitted that Ld.AO erred in treating the purchase and sale of said property as business venture, and that, difference in price must be treated as business

SRI. B.T. DAYANANDA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

section 2(14) of the Act. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on certificate dated 28.11.2011from PWD stating that property is situated beyond 12.6 km from BBMP limits, It has been submitted that Ld.AO erred in treating the purchase and sale of said property as business venture, and that, difference in price must be treated as business

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

capital gain has been earned by sale of share as penny stock. After recording of reasons and taking necessary approval from the competent authorities as per extended date by the CBDT, the approval was granted and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished reply on 30.10.2023 and the assessee also furnished reply

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 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 17.04.2009 determining the total income at Rs. 52,22,60,1521. The assessing authority made the following additions: 1. Travel expenses disallowed. Rs.1,68,371/- 2. Excess interest expenses disallowed Rs.17,26,100/- 3. Unaccounted scrap sales: Rs.25,76,253/- 4. Capital gain

VINAY KONCHADY SHENOY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

Capital Gain on sale of property to the extent of Rs.1,44,253/- 2.3 During the year, the assessee had sold residential property to the extent of Rs.77,50,000/- on 20.04.2019. Accordingly, the purchaser deducted TDS of Rs. 77,500/- (percentage on consideration paid) and the same is reflected in 26AS statement. 2.4 The Return of income filed

SRI.VENKATARAMANAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

capital gains for the assessment year 2009-10 which is impermissible in law on the facts and circumstance of the case. 9. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver as per the parity of reasoning of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karanvir Singh 349 ITR 692, the Appellant denies Page

M/S I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

253 (Bangalore - Trib.) is also found to be well placed. In view of above, the disallowance or depreciation as made by the AO is upheld. M/s. I&B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore Page 8 of 26 7. Further, it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has relied upon certain decisions to support its contention that differential

MR.ZAMIR MIRZA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazshri Zamir Mirza, Flat No.4A, Iv Floor, Mayfair Apartments No.31, Berlie Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Acapm2850L. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1(1), Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.Y Ningoji Rao, C.A Respondent By : Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -10-2017 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz:

section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.98/B/17 4 4. The facts contained in the accompanying application made u/s 253 (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 2.2 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. Taking into