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

section 12B(2) applies and the Income-tax\nOfficer must take into account the full value of\nthe consideration for the transfer.\nFourthly, a related objection has been\nraised in Para 9 of your letter dated\n02.06.2014. You have stated that, “full value\nof consideration cannot be construed as\nhaving a reference to the market value of the\nasset transferred

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

32,64,99,962\n43,25,290\n43,25,290\n17,49,200\n17,49,200\n40,000\n40,000\nSurvey charges\nEvaluation and speculation of JD\nJD Agreement\nDesign and inspection\n11,251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total

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

Section 2(31) of the Act define person to include an individual as well as a firm. Therefore, merely because the land was acquired from the firm at the guideline value & the transfer under the JDA is also required to be considered at the same guideline value that does not mean the capital gain accruing as a result

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

Section 2(31) of the Act define person to include an individual as well as a firm. Therefore, merely because the land was acquired from the firm at the guideline value & the transfer under the JDA is also required to be considered at the same guideline value that does not mean the capital gain accruing as a result

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

section 12B(2) applies and the Income-tax\nOfficer must take into account the full value of\nthe consideration for the transfer.\nFourthly, a related objection has been\nraised in Para 9 of your letter dated\n02.06.2014. You have stated that, “full value\nof consideration cannot be construed as\nhaving a reference to the market value of the\nasset transferred

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

gains of the undertaking; and that sub-section, as if such amendment or (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance omission had not been made.] under section 32, the written down value of Explanation. For the purposes of this any asset used for the purposes of the section, business of the undertaking shall be computed (i) free trade zone means

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

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section\n(1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of\nconversion by the owner of a capital asset into, or its\ntreatment by him as stock-in-trade of a business carried on\nby him shall be chargeable to income-tax as his income of\nthe previous year in which

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain. The deeming provision under Section 50\nC (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable\nproperty may have various attributes, charges. encumbrances,\nlimitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not\ntake into consideration the attributes of the property for determining\nthe fair market value in the condition, the property is offered

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

gains or capital. . ITA No.2081 /Bang/2025 Page 12 of 32 12.8 It is also noted that the identical view was taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of the Karnataka in the subsequent decision in case of Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Mysore dated 9th June 2015 reported in [2015] 60 taxmann.com

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

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

2(47)(v) of the Act. In such circumstances, the\nessential conditions of transfer having not been satisfied,\nthere can be no charge of capital gains under Section 45(1)\nof the Act in this assessment year.\n9. We also note that during reassessment proceedings, the\nassessee had submitted photographs showing that the\nproject was still under construction, which substantiates

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

32,62,487/- for the AY 2018-19\nwas directed to be restored and accordingly all the grounds are\ndecided in affirmative to the assessee.\n\n11. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 24/09/2024,\nthe revenue has filed the present appeals before this Tribunal and\nthe assessee has filed the cross objection supporting the order

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

32,515/-. Accordingly, sum of Rs.1,86,63,291/-/- were invested towards purchase of residential plots. Further a sum of Rs.22,52,000/- was spent towards construction of the house building. Accordingly, the total investments were made within the stipulated time for an amount of Rs.2,08,50,858/-. Accordingly capital gain was Nil. Since the original landlord

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub- section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub- section (1) [***], a return

SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

section 2(47) of the act in support of his contention. 4.6 The Ld.AR heavily relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. CIT reported in (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that, in the case of acquiring a share, the date of acquisition

SHARANABASAVESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKRI NI HALINGALI,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act." 22. Again, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in still a later decision reported in the same volume of ITR in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. [2016] 389 ITR 607/76 taxmann.com 307 (Punj. & Har.) concurred with the aforesaid view of the Gujarat

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, 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

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

32,70,369/- in a separate account called Capital Gains Account Scheme Account in terms of Section 54(2) of the Income

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

2. The second issues that emanates from this agreement is that the appellant has transferred 3 flats by virtue of supplementary agreement dated 23.2.2004. Hence, there is a short term capital gain that is arising for the AY 2004¬05 on account of the transfer of these 3 fiats by this supplementary agreements. The cost of these flats are ascertainable

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

2. The second issues that emanates from this agreement is that the appellant has transferred 3 flats by virtue of supplementary agreement dated 23.2.2004. Hence, there is a short term capital gain that is arising for the AY 2004¬05 on account of the transfer of these 3 fiats by this supplementary agreements. The cost of these flats are ascertainable