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

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

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

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

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) clearly permits set-off of short-term capital\nloss against income under the head “Capital gains” from any other\ncapital asset. The provision does not impose any restriction based on the\nrate of tax. He argued that rate provisions under sections 111A and 112\noperate independently from computation provisions. The CPC exceeded\nits jurisdiction under section

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

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

28,86,124\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 gains\narose

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

28 of the KIAD Act, 1966. If it\nis so, then only said capital gain arising out of compulsory acquisition of\nland by KIADB for BMRCL Project is to be exempted. With these observations, the CIT(A)\nis directed to decide the issue after examining the Notification of acquisition of\nproperty in accordance with law and also in light

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

gains" and\nshall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which\ntransfer took place. However, in the present case, income has to\nbe charged u/s 28 of the Act after conversion of capital asset into\nstock in trade and it has to consider the applicability of section\n45(2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

28.%\nAccordingly, as per provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, the assessee\nhas received Rs.2,29,09,768/- the value of the property without\nconsideration as per provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. In this regard,\na show cause notice was issued to the assessee and assessee has filed\ndetailed written submissions which

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

28,82,236/- while the tax liability on capital gains remained unchanged at Rs. 3,58,312/-. 3. Against the intimation order, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act which was dismissed vide order dated 03rd December 2021. The assessee filed the second rectification application under section 154 of the Act dated 22nd December

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

capital fund.] Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "computer software" means,— (a)any computer programme recorded on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device; or (b)any customized electronic data or any product or service of similar nature, as may be notified by the Board, which is transmitted or exported from India

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

capital gains. IT(IT)A No. 120/Bang/2022 for AY 2014-15 4 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das 3. It was noted from the assessment order, the assessee had not filed any return of income, however he had sold property of Rs.30 lakhs and had cash deposit of Rs.58,40,000/-. The ld.AO issued notice

UDAYA SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of "Income from other sources", hence, such interest income would be taxable under section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the Assessing Officer. In this connection, we may analyze section 80P of the Act. This section comes in Chapter VI-A, which

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital in the audited balance sheet, it is clear that\nPCARD Banks/ primaries are members of the assessee. This\nis also clear from clause 2(n) of chapter II of the bye laws and\nsection 2(a-1-2) and 2(j-4) of the KCS Act. In fact the first\nlisted object of the assessee is to advance loans

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

28 of the Karnataka\nCo-operative Societies Rules, 1960, every Co-operative Society\naccepting deposits and granting cash credits shall maintain fluid\nresources in such form and according to such standards as may be\nfixed by the Registrar, from time to time, by general or special order.\nAs per section 58 of the Karnataka State Co-operative Society Act,\n1959