MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

gains which arose on the sale of the said lands was wrongly offered in the original return in as much as the same was exempt from tax being agricultural lands and hence excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' as per the provisions of s. 2 (14)(iii) of the Act. Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore Page

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

Section 11514 is\nnot applicable to the banking companies. Therefore, the substantial\nquestions of law Nos.3, 4 and substantial question of law framed\nin ITA 99/2010 are rendered academic and need not be answered so.\nPage 8 of 40\nITA Nos.1154/Bang/2023 &\nM/s. Canara Bank., Bangalore\nfar as substantial question of law No.2 in ITA No.97/2010 is\nconcerned, the same

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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

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

section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Being so, the capital gain on entering into JDA in question, could not have been taxed in the assessment year 2010-11. 8.12 Further, there is no progress in development agreement in assessment year under consideration. The permission for construction was not obtained in the assessment under Kola Venkat

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

28,978/- on sale of shares and mutual against the Non STT short capital gains from ITA No.2194 & 2195/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 16 sale of units of mutual fund and thereby reducing the eligible deduction under section

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

2). Taxing gain on slump sale as capital gain is also not possible because the Apex Court following the decision in CIT V. B. C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) held that the charging section and the computation sections are integrated code and if one fails other fails. If the computation sections fail then even the charging section fails

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

28,768/- as capital gain without appreciating the submission of the Appellant. Page 2 of 16 3) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the agreement to sell the undivided share and also the agreement for determination of value of the property were executed on 09.06.2006 and the Appellant had constructive possession of the land from that date

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 by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 48(2) of the Act, according to the assessee. Accordingly, the capital gains for transfer of property to M/s. Gopalan Enterprises is required to be computed by giving a reasonable expenditure towards fencing and also by reducing Rs.3,30,29,479 from capital gains as computed by the AO. 21. The ld. DR submitted that the original agreement dated

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

section 143(2) on the basis of the aforesaid return which was non-est in law. The ratio decidendi of this judgement is that the AO is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) at all, in a case where the assessee filed the return beyond the time limit prescribed for furnishing such return. It follows from this judgement

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

capital asset in stock in trade the business must be in existence. If the assessee starts the business by converting the investment into stock in trade instead of purchasing it from the market can it not be called that the assessee is in the business of trading in shares enabling the assessee to avail the benefit of section 45(2

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2,50,000). As per the sharing agreement, the landowners have got UDS (land area) of 1,09,924 sq.ft. So final land cost per sq feet is Rs.92.99 (Rs.1,02,22,000 divided by 109924 sq.ft.) • The COA was erroneously calculated at from 45.85 to 49.74 as cost per sq ft while filing the ITR. The correct COA rate

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2,50,000). As per the sharing agreement, the landowners have got UDS (land area) of 1,09,924 sq.ft. So final land cost per sq feet is Rs.92.99 (Rs.1,02,22,000 divided by 109924 sq.ft.) • The COA was erroneously calculated at from 45.85 to 49.74 as cost per sq ft while filing the ITR. The correct COA rate

SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

2 is concerned, it has already been answered in favour of the assessee. In view of the decision of this court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 the said question must be held to have been rightly answered in favour of the assessee. So far as question No. 3 is concerned the assessee invoked clause

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

2], Chennai [(2020) 115 taxmann.com 5\n(SC)] while considering the provision of Section 53 of the\nTP Act in the context of capital gains under the Income\nTax Act, it has been held thus:\nITA Nos.775 & 954/Bang/2024\nSri Alagappa Muthiah (HUF), Bangalore\nITA Nos.776 & 955/Bang/2024\nSri Alagappa Annamalai (HUF), Bangalore\nPage 28

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

28,86,124\n14,60,95,303\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial\nportion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion. On the other-hand\nboth these persons contended that the liability to capital