ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

260/- as against the actual capital Page 5 of 35 gains of Rs.3,34,56,000/- as worked out above. At the time of filing the return of income the assessee did not raise any objection for issue of notice and admitted the capital gains as per his own calculations and filed the return of income. 6. The assessee challenged

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

section 153C that the said seized document does not pertain to Trans Global Power Ltd. but to the assessee. The AO of the assessee after examining the JDA and satisfied that the same belongs to the assessee initiated proceedings u/s.153C. The AO on examination of the JDA was of the view capital gains arises at the time of execution

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

260 ITR 491), consider this issue and it was observed as under:- "Under Section2(47)(v), any transaction involving allowing of possession to be taken or retained in part performance of the contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would come within the ambit of Section 2(47)(v). That, in order

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains of Rs.59,73,467/- claimed under section 54F of IT Act. 3. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding disallowance of exemption under section 54F on the basis that the villa was registered on 21.02.2015 i.e. prior to transfer of original asset i.e. Page 2 of 16 13.11.2015 when section 54F does not bar construction within

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. In this regard, "transfer" as defined in section 2(47) of the Act inter alia includes, any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract

SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. In this regard, "transfer" as defined in section 2(47) of the Act inter alia includes, any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

capital gains tax as per section 45(1) arises in\nthe same year of JDA and the consideration is required to\nbe computed as per the SR value of the transferred land.\nThe same view was also held by the Hon'ble High Court of\nBombay in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwaraka Das Kapadia\nv/s. CIT (2003) 260

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

260 ITR 491 and CIT v. Dr T.K Dayalu ITA No 3165/2005 (Kar) is also bad in law. The ratio of these decisions applies in determining the year of taxability of capital gains in context of a development agreement. The Court in these decisions held that by virtue of the deeming fiction created under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gain by following completed contract method as assessee not involved in the construction and development activity and the AS-7 not applicable to the assessee as the assessee is not a contractor and the assessee’s revenue is to be recognized and governed by AS-9. ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gain by following completed contract method as assessee not involved in the construction and development activity and the AS-7 not applicable to the assessee as the assessee is not a contractor and the assessee’s revenue is to be recognized and governed by AS-9. ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore