DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Rajamahal Vilas Extension Bangalore 560 080 Pan No : Aaана3885P Appellant

Section 45[5A] of the Act, has been inserted that the date of occupancy certificate is relevant for determining the taxation of capital gains. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of N.A. Harris in ITA No.988/Bang/2018 dated 15/02/2021 specifically para [33] on page 200 to 202. Appellant also relies upon

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Rajamahal Vilas Extension Bangalore 560 080 Pan No: Aaaha3885P Appellant

Section 45[5A] of the Act, has been inserted that the date of occupancy certificate is relevant for determining the taxation of capital gains. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of N.A. Harris in ITA No.988/Bang/2018 dated 15/02/2021 specifically para [33] on page 200 to 202. Appellant also relies upon

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Rajamahal Vilas Extension Bangalore 560 080 Pan No: Aaана3885P Appellant

Section 45[5A] of the Act, has been inserted that the date of occupancy certificate is relevant for determining the taxation of capital gains. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of N.A. Harris in ITA No.988/Bang/2018 dated 15/02/2021 specifically para [33] on page 200 to 202. Appellant also relies upon

ITO vs. R. SRINIVAS,

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

capital gains in the construction of the new residential building is 31.3.2010, as per the provisions of section 139(4) of the Act. In support of this proposition, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Nipur Mehrotra (supra); the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

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

Gain and disallowed to the Assessee the short term capital loss of Rs. 117,76,40,000 in respect of sale of equity shares of Jupiter Capital Private Limited by the Assessee to M/s Vectra Holdings Private Limited.” 20. In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above and the quantum appeal

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

Gain and disallowed to the Assessee the short term capital loss of Rs. 117,76,40,000 in respect of sale of equity shares of Jupiter Capital Private Limited by the Assessee to M/s Vectra Holdings Private Limited.” 20. In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above and the quantum appeal

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

Gain and disallowed to the Assessee the short term capital loss of Rs. 117,76,40,000 in respect of sale of equity shares of Jupiter Capital Private Limited by the Assessee to M/s Vectra Holdings Private Limited.” 20. In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above and the quantum appeal

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

Gain and disallowed to the Assessee the short term capital loss of Rs. 117,76,40,000 in respect of sale of equity shares of Jupiter Capital Private Limited by the Assessee to M/s Vectra Holdings Private Limited.” 20. In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above and the quantum appeal

SMT.CHANDRAKALA SHASHIDAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

274], wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that – “The words used in section 54F are `purchased’ or `constructed’ and held that the condition precedent for claiming benefit under such provision is the capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

274 CTR 122), wherein held as follows:- “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

274 CTR 122), wherein held as follows:- “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

274 CTR 122), wherein held as follows:- “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

274 CTR 122), wherein held as follows:- “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

274 CTR 122), wherein held as follows:- “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

274 CTR 122), wherein held as follows:- “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens

SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

Capital Gains. The AO further held that as the assessee had not offered the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as income, the undisclosed income is covered by provision of clause(b) Simplex TMC Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 17 of Section 271AAB(1A) of the Act and accordingly a penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI. SANDEEP BHUJANGA SHETTY, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

274, Sankey Road, Vs. Circle – 6(3) (1), Sadashivanagar, 4th Floor, BMTC Building, Bengaluru – 560 080. 6th Block, Koramangala, PAN NO : AACPS 9801 M Bengaluru – 560 095. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT – DR Respondent by : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, C A Date of Hearing : 16-01-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 06-03-2020 Page

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

274 4. Kilburn Properties Limited v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 17 ITR 134 5. Ezra Propritary Estate Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 18 ITR 762 6. Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 33 ITR 341 7. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (SC) 57 ITR 306 8. CIT vs. Bhavnagar Trust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat