GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

35. Once, the assessee has availed deduction u/s 24(b) on account of interest paid on housing loan , there could not be again addition of the same interest on housing loan to the cost of acquisition u/s 48 for computing capital gains chargeable to income-tax, as the said increased cost of acquisition is deducted while computing capital gains chargeable

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A,\nclause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section\n23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34,4A,, section 35 and\nsection 37 of the Wealth-tax Act. 1957 (27 of 1957). shall, with\nnecessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they\napply

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

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 allowance or deduction; declaration in writing that the provisions of (ii) no loss

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

capital gains is taxable in AY 1996-97. The High Court\nobserved that in the instant case, the agreement was a\nDevelopment Agreement and the test to be applied to decide the\nyear of chargeability was the year in which the transaction had\nbeen entered into. This view was taken for the reason that the\nDevelopment Agreement does not transfer

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

35,48,628\n45,91,489\n\n13.2 It is submitted that the interest income earned by co-operative\nsocieties are governed by section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It is\nsubmitted that the interest income is attributable to the business of\nproviding credit facilities to its members and therefore, it is\neligible for deduction u/s.80P(2

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

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate

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

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

35(1)(iv) reads as under: "in respect of any expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research related to the business carried on by the assessee, such deduction as may be admissible under the provisions of sub- section (2) " The expenditure is initially claimed by the assessee u/s 37(1) as business expenditure. Sec. 37(l) reads as under

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HOSAPETE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALLARI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuprathamika Krishi Pattina Vs The Income Tax Officer Sahakara Sangha Niymit Ward - 2 No. 350, Ward No. 15, Hospet 583201 Amaravathi Village, Hospet Tq. Ballari - 583201 Pan – Aaajp0326N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, Irs (Retd) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 13.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.02.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi In Appeal Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250//2022-23/1047496227(1) Dated 18.11.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Impugned Assessment Order Made U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated, 25-11-2019, Is Arbitrary & Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Principles Of Natural Justice & Therefore, The Same Is Liable To Be Vacated As Void. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate: (I) That The Interest Income Accruing From The Investments Made In Statutory Compliance Of The Provisions Of The State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 Is Eligible For The Deduction As Business Income U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act.

35 of the Judgment) (iv) The restrictive clause in sub-section (4) of section 80P applies only a co-operative bank and not to cooperative societies or to co-operative societies extending credit facilities to its members. Further, only a bank having obtained the license under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, shall be covered under the said restrictive clause