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

5. Similarly, Shri. Desirazu Sundara Siva Rao computed capital gain on account of JDA for Assessment Year 2015-16 as follows: Schedule 1 Long term capital gain Immovable property other than residential Date of transfer 17-Oct-14 Sale consideration 1,92,85,000 Acquisition details Financial Year Cost Indexed Cost Cost of Land-1862*1024/161

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

5. Similarly, Shri. Desirazu Sundara Siva Rao computed capital gain on account of JDA for Assessment Year 2015-16 as follows: Schedule 1 Long term capital gain Immovable property other than residential Date of transfer 17-Oct-14 Sale consideration 1,92,85,000 Acquisition details Financial Year Cost Indexed Cost Cost of Land-1862*1024/161

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 139 of the Act, it was submitted that assessee has expended the entire consideration of Rs.12,33,200/- within the period

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.

5. The above grounds relate to two issues, namely re-computation of arm's length price of share sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- and differential tax on account of difference in rate of tax on capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above

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.

5. The above grounds relate to two issues, namely re-computation of arm's length price of share sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- and differential tax on account of difference in rate of tax on capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

capital fund. Thus, it is evident that interest on NCDs, interest on loan to Subsidiaries, interest on debentures, interest on Govt securities, interest on tax refunds, insurance claim, incentive from airlines and rental income from BSNL are offered to tax under the head Profits and gains of business and not under the head Income from other sources

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

253/- 4. Capital gain on transfer of property to M/s. Gopalan Enterprises was determined at Rs. 10,55,31,547/- as against Rs.5,55,31,547/-. 5. Capital gain on transfer of property to M/s. IDEB was determined at Rs.43,61,72,341/- as against Rs. NIL. 2.4 Aggrieved by the above, the assessee filed an appeal before

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

253 ITR 749 (Guj)\n\n13.14 The assessee relied on the decision Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh & Others 5\nSCC 448 for the proposition that even if the earlier decision of the\nCo-ordinate Bench seems to be incorrect to a Bench of the same\njurisdiction on the ground that a possible

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. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

gains under section 28 of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld.Counsel relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dr.T.A Quereshi vs CIT (supra). OR; ii. To treat it as expenditure in the hands of assessee under section 37 of the Act. It has been submitted by Ld.Counsel that Explanation 2 to section

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