M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain, which make it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act. Hence, the notice u/s 263 of the Act issued so as to revise the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 18.12.2017 in the assessment year

SRI. N.G. CHANDRA REDDY (HUF),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

section 2(47)(v) of 11 the Act. In the case of K.M. Nagaraj (supra), the Tribunal though taken a different view however the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dr.T.K.Dayalu (supra) was not taken into consideration as it was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. As regards the computation of capital gains

SRI ANJANEYALU PRATHIPATHI,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Years: 2012-13

section 2[47] of the Act for the year under consideration and, therefore, same was brought to tax as short term capital gains. In this manner, the ld.AO concluded the assessment proceedings by passing the impugned order u/s. 143[3] rws 153C of the Act dated 29/01/2016 making a lone addition of Rs.8,74,38,017/- as Short Term Capital

ASST.C.I.T.,MANGALORE vs. M/S SHANKAR VITTAL MOTOR CO. LTD.,, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry

section 2(47) since the appellant is also admitting that, it is liable for capital gains as on the date of JDA. Hence, the 5 ITA No.35(Bang)/2015 case law in the case of Dr. T.K. Dayalu decided by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is followed. The issue that arises now is, what is the value of consideration

SMT. SRIDEVI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. Sridevi, No. 2395, E-Block, The Income Tax Officer, Sahakaranagar, Vs. Ward – 6 (3) (3), Bangalore – 560 092. Bangalore. Pan: Aicpr5099Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri U. Lakshmoji Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019

section 2(47)(v) of ITA No.390/Bang/2015 the Act. In the case of K.M. Nagaraj (supra), the Tribunal though taken a different view however the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dr.T.K.Dayalu (supra) was not taken into consideration as it was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. As regards the computation of capital

SHRI.SURESH NAGARAJA RAO KESTUR ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

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

section 54F in respect of capital gains earned on the sale of original asset. 3.3 Assessee submitted that there was no irregularity of transactions of purchase and sale by assessee and that this was the only solitary transaction entered into by assessee. Further, it was submitted that the co-owners were relatives of assessee, all of them were salaried people

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE vs. M/S CPC LOGISTICS LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 2(47)(v) 3 r.ws. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the CIT (Appeals) has further held that the deemed consideration of the land should be adopted as fair market value of the built up area to be received by the assessee as on the date of JDA and based on the Govt. records in para

RAMANAMURTHY MATHOD SRINIVASMURTHY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

gain and he stated in his letter that he proposed to complete the short term capital gain/loss as against long term capital gains/loss computed by the assessee. On furnishing necessary details of assessee, he was convinced and came to conclusion that the impugned transfer of property resulted in long term capital loss and same was allowed

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. SMT. SAROJINI M. KUSHE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') to the developer M/s. R & S Turnkey Contractors Pvt. Ltd. for furnishing cost of construction in respect of the property to be constructed. The developer vide its letter dt.11.3.2014 has stated that the construction of cost is Rs.1,600 per sq. ft. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer

M/S. SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

264 and the return was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice Under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance, the A.R. of the assessee appeared form time to time and furnished the details. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dt.5.12.2018 and called for the documents. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order

SHRI. PRAKASH RAMACHANDRA PRABHU,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaranshri Prakash Ramachandra Prabhu, No.308, 7Th Main, Hal #Rd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 075. Pan No.Aajpp5078N Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore Respondent

capital gain, he did not pay any tax. When the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 20-03- 2009, the exemption was not allowed to the assessee and accordingly a demand of Rs.74.10 lakhs was raised upon the assessee. According to the assessee, he did not receive the copy of intimation

M/S. KOKKARNE PRABHAKAR,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Indira Prasta Apartment, Ward 3(2), Hubballi. Vivekanand Colony, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 023 Pan Acipp 8430H

264), had held as follows:- 5 I.T.A. No. 1239/Bang/2019 “7. Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1-4-1994. Sub-section (1) of section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

264), had held as follows:- “7. Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1-4-1994. Sub-section (1) of section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated at 8 per cent

MR.GIRISH V YALAKKISHETTAR ,DHARWAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

264), had held as follows:- “7. Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1-4-1994. Sub-section (1) of section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated at 8 per cent

MR. GIRISH V YALAKKISHETTAR,DAHRWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

264), had held as follows:- “7. Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1-4-1994. Sub-section (1) of section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated at 8 per cent

SYED MAQSOODULLA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Syed Maqsoodulla, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.14, 7Th “A’ Cross Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore. ‘D’ Block, Magadi Road Bangalore-560023. [Pan:Cycps 3116F]

264), had held as follows:- “7. Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1-4-1994. Sub-section (1) of section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated at 8 per cent

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

264, following the above decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provisions namely section 10B(i), 10B(5), 10B(6)(ii), and section

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

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

capital gain that arose during the year due to transfer of land by assessee amounting to Rs.60,99,982/- . Ld.AO further made addition of Rs.18,88,06,908/- being credits Page 7 of 26 ITA No.1376-1379/Bang/2019 on account of various persons with whom assessee was alleged to be transacting for purchase of land. 10. For assessment years