BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gain and allowed the exemption claimed under Section 54EC of the Act as claimed by the appellant in full 6. The Ld. CIT(A)ought to have appreciated that the amount received was only the balance consideration at the time of registration and part of the sale consideration and it is neither a loan nor an advance 7. Thus

MFAR HOLDINGS PVT. LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

gains or the business loss or the section under which these were considered. AO in the operative part of the assessment order dt.27.03.2013 held as under : 3 . The assessee company is engaged in business of Holdings & leasing of Properties and Consultancy services. During the course of hearing, vide order sheet noting on 31/12/12 & 11/01/13, the assessee was asked to furnish

MRS. SUREKHA L/R OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital gains. 11. The CIT(A) and AO erred in initiating proceedings under section 271D of the Act for violation

SRI. PADMANABHA MANGALORE CHOWTA,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain out of sale of the impugned property and paid the tax liability on it. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act without any further addition. However, the penalty proceedings were invoked with regard to violation of section 269SS of the Act for receiving

SRI. GANGASHARA SHETTY, ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain (LTCG) u/s 54 of the Act as he has utilized the amount of gain in construction of one residential house. Thereafter, the reassessment proceedings were completed at the returned income. However, it has been noticed by the AO that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.6 lakhs in cash while entering into the transaction of sale

SMT SAVITA S GONGADSHETT ,BAGALKOT vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAPUR RANGE , VIJAYAPUR

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

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No.116(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Savita S Gangadshetti, Gorbal Naka, At Ilkal, Tal. Hungund, Bagalkot Dist. Pan No.Aclpg6870B Appellant Vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vijayapur Range, Vijayapur. Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S.Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M. Vijaykumar, Addl.Cit

capital account of the assessee. He further submitted that the tax authorities are not justified in treating these transactions as loan transactions. He further submitted that, even if it is considered as loan transactions, the penalty u/s 271E should not have been levied as the transactions entered between close relatives are considered to fall under reasonable cause. For this preposition

JAMEEL UR RAHAMAN,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HASSAN

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

271D of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual, having income from capital gains. For the assessment year 2017-2018, the return of income was filed on 19.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs.6,38,940. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act