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

Section 234D of the Act. 12) For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee during the relevant year has sold a residential property for a consideration of Rs. 2,01,24,000 vide sale

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 Page 19 of 40 2(47)(v) of the Act cannot be applied to justify determination of capital gains in the relevant assessment year. Reliance was placed on the judgment referred to supra and also in the following cases: Sri Ravinder Singh Arora vs. ACIT (ITAT, Hyd Bench dt. 20.07.2012). C.S. Atwal

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

35,99,751 [being the difference\nbetween Rs.41,96,95,044.50 and Rs.14,60,95,303 in the AY 2017-18\nand permit me to pay the balance tax in instalment. I hereby submit\nthat the omission to offer the capital gains in the AY 17-18 was not\nwilful but due to lack of details from Millenia Realtors

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

35,99,751 [being the difference\nbetween Rs.41,96,95,044.50 and Rs.14,60,95,303 in the AY 2017-18\nand permit me to pay the balance tax in instalment. I hereby submit\nthat the omission to offer the capital gains in the AY 17-18 was not\nwilful but due to lack of details from Millenia Realtors

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

35,99,751 [being the difference\nbetween Rs.41,96,95,044.50 and Rs.14,60,95,303 in the AY 2017-18\nand permit me to pay the balance tax in instalment. I hereby submit\nthat the omission to offer the capital gains in the AY 17-18 was not\nwilful but due to lack of details from Millenia Realtors

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

section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 26. The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G.Patel (supra) is a case where the deed of reconstitution specifically referred to release of rights of the outgoing partners in the assets of the partnership and further

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

section 55." 31. Thus the only way to bring to tax sale consideration received on transfer of “Technical know-how” is to call it “goodwill” and that is probably Page 27 of 45 the reason why the AO preferred to call transfer of Technical know-how as transfer of goodwill. We are of the view that “Technical know

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

gains in view of section 2(14) read with sections 45 and 48 of the Act?" 7.3.5. After taking into account the submissions of the either of the party and also the perusal of the orders of the authorities below, the Hon'ble Court had held as under: "5. We find from the record that the Appellate Commissioner as well

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU vs. M/S. BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

Section 50B(1) of the Income-tax Act also clearly states that any profits or gains arising from the slump sale effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income-tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

35 possession was handed over on 12.05.2004, the capital gain if any chargeable to tax for the AY- 2005-06 and not 2009-10 as it is very clear from the JDA dt.12.05.2004 and the developer has taken requisite Government approvals for construction of residential apartment under the name and style – SJR Spencer. Hence, as per provisions of section

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

capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

capital gains account scheme. The authorities below alleges that, sum of Rs.65 Lacs invested in construction of residential property cannot be allowed to assessee, since property could not be constructed within period of 3 years. There is no finding by authorities below that, delay in construction was attributable to assessee but was beyond the control of assessee since the construction

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

35. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that in so far as the loss on sale/assignment of debentures is concerned, the same has been determined at nil and therefore there are not tax implications. It was also submitted that there would no income, which could be set off within the time permitted in law of the short term capital

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act was issued. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed a sum of Rs.1,26,00,000 as exempt u/s 54 of the I.T.Act. The details of the same were called for and it was noticed that

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 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. 7.2.1. The prime issues for consideration before

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 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. 7.2.1. The prime issues for consideration before

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 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. 7.2.1. The prime issues for consideration before

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 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. 7.2.1. The prime issues for consideration before

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

section 47(xii) of the Income Tax business activity occur in Act, 1961, for saving capital gain tax the firm. ....... ITA Nos. 1376 & 1377 & 1378 & 1379/Bang/2015 Page 11 of 35