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

capital gains ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 11 of 33 of Rs.17,96,704/- (Rs.4,92,69,179 – 4,74,72,475) was added back to the income of the assessee and brought to tax. 3.6 With regard to the Notional rent on residential property owned

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

section 70 of the Act. The Act does not create separate compartments within the head “Capital gains” based on rates for the purpose of set off, except in the case of long-term capital loss, which cannot be set off against short-term capital gains. No such restriction is placed on short-term capital loss. In holding so, we draw

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 45[5A] of the Act, has been\ninserted that the date of occupancy certificate is relevant for\ndetermining the taxation of capital gains. The appellant has relied\nupon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of N.A. Harris in\nITA No.988/Bang/2018 dated 15/02/2021 specifically para [33

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

Section 45[5A] of the Act, has been\ninserted that the date of occupancy certificate is relevant for\ndetermining the taxation of capital gains. The appellant has relied\nupon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of N.A. Harris in\nITA No.988/Bang/2018 dated 15/02/2021 specifically para [33

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 45[5A] of the Act, has been\ninserted that the date of occupancy certificate is relevant for\ndetermining the taxation of capital gains. The appellant has relied\nupon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of N.A. Harris in\nITA No.988/Bang/2018 dated 15/02/2021 specifically para [33

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain taxable at another\nrate is not supported by the plain language of section 70 of the Act. The\nAct does not create separate compartments within the head "Capital\ngains" based on rates for the purpose of set off, except in the case of\nlong-term capital loss, which cannot be set off against short-term capital\ngains. No such

POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 10 (38) of the act on sale of shares of Sunstar reality limited. Assessee submitted that assessee has offered short term capital gain on sale of those shares and offered tax in the computation of total income. The assessee has purchased the shares for a value of Page 3 of 8 Rs.1,33

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

33. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has not given opportunity to the AO to examine the JDAs based on which the CIT(A) has directed the re-computation of capital gains. ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 19 of 23 34. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has gone beyond his jurisdiction

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

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

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

33. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has not given opportunity to the AO to examine the JDAs based on which the CIT(A) has directed the re-computation of capital gains. ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 19 of 23 34. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has gone beyond his jurisdiction

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

33. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has not given opportunity to the AO to examine the JDAs based on which the CIT(A) has directed the re-computation of capital gains. ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 19 of 23 34. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has gone beyond his jurisdiction

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

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

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

33. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has not given opportunity to the AO to examine the JDAs based on which the CIT(A) has directed the re-computation of capital gains. ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 19 of 23 34. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has gone beyond his jurisdiction

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

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

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

33. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has not given opportunity to the AO to examine the JDAs based on which the CIT(A) has directed the re-computation of capital gains. ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 19 of 23 34. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has gone beyond his jurisdiction

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

33,317/- and Indexed Cost of Improvement of Rs 60,66,315/- be allowed as deductions from the sale consideration of Rs 3,72,50,000/- and Long Term Capital Gains be arrived at Rs 91,50,368/- Page 4 of 10 3.2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains, in such a case, the value offered for tax by the assessee is to be adopted and section 50C does not apply to the case of the assessee. Page 26 of 33

SHANTHA ALIAS SHANTHAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

33,42,009/- without issuing any notice under Section\n143(2) of the Income Tax Act. This procedural lapse renders the\nassessment order invalid and unsustainable in law.\n3. Non-Existent DIN Renders Assessment Order Void The Hon'ble\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the\nDocument Identification Number (DIN) mentioned in the assessment\norder

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

33,414/-. 21. Likewise, for the assessment year 2011-12 he assessed the Income from Business at Rs.325,32,46,980/-, Income from Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.71,90,45,278/-, Income from Short Term Capital Gains at Rs.84,92,10,510/- & Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.7,91,031/-. 22. In the assessment order

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

33, sub- where the assessee, [before the due date section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso for furnishing the return of income under to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as sub-section (1) of section 139] [***], the case may be, shall not apply in relation to furnishes to the [Assessing] Officer a any such

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section