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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 80G of the Act for Rs. 16,28,978/- only.\n4. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual, during the\nyear under consideration derived income under the house property,\nbusiness income, capital gain and other sources. In the return of income,\nthe assessee declared Gross Total Income-GTI of Rs. 37

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

37. The CIT(Appeals) has examined all these agreements entered into between the assessee and M/s. Kristal Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd., and had directed the AO to recompute the capital gains in 3 parts spread across AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06 as summarised in the earlier part of this order. We have perused various clauses of JDA dated

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

37. The CIT(Appeals) has examined all these agreements entered into between the assessee and M/s. Kristal Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd., and had directed the AO to recompute the capital gains in 3 parts spread across AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06 as summarised in the earlier part of this order. We have perused various clauses of JDA dated

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

37. The CIT(Appeals) has examined all these agreements entered into between the assessee and M/s. Kristal Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd., and had directed the AO to recompute the capital gains in 3 parts spread across AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06 as summarised in the earlier part of this order. We have perused various clauses of JDA dated

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

37. The CIT(Appeals) has examined all these agreements entered into between the assessee and M/s. Kristal Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd., and had directed the AO to recompute the capital gains in 3 parts spread across AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06 as summarised in the earlier part of this order. We have perused various clauses of JDA dated

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

37. The CIT(Appeals) has examined all these agreements entered into between the assessee and M/s. Kristal Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd., and had directed the AO to recompute the capital gains in 3 parts spread across AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06 as summarised in the earlier part of this order. We have perused various clauses of JDA dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

37,82,496/-\ndiscussed in Para 3 above\nNet capital gains earned from\nthe sale of land and from sale\nof shares as discussed in Para\n4 above\n11,66,07,036/-\n12,03,89,532/-\n6\nAssessed deemed income u/s\n115JB as per this order\n12,66,92,892/-\nSince the tax payable u/s\n115JB is more than

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

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 such stock-in-trade is sold or\notherwise transferred

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

gain shown by the assessee. Here, we feel pertinent to refer the order of the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Indravadan Jain HUF in ITA No. 4861/Mum/2014. In the said case the assessee Indravadan Jain HUF . Page 10 of 19 purchased share of M/s Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd in the year

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

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

Capital Gains were taxed during AY 2020-21 instead of AY 2019-20.\n8. Taxation of Refundable Deposit\nPage 3 of 22\nITA No.465/Bang/2025\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the contention\nof the Appellant by taxing the refundable deposit received in the year\nunder consideration, which is against the settled principles of taxation.\n9. Double Taxation

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

37 of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning

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

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

37,03/- only. 4. Subsequently, a search proceeding under section 132 of the Act was conducted at Srinivasa Trust on 06-08-2012, during which a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 05-02-2005 between the assessee (Chaitanya Properties Pvt. Ltd.) and M/s Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. was found and marked as Annexure 14/ST/132. Additionally, the loan sanction details pertaining

SHRI. K V SATISH BABU [HUF],MYSURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2[1], MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

37,05,858/- as Income from Long term Capital Gains upholding the view that the date of entering into the joint development agreement i.e., 16/09/2010 would be the date of transfer of the said capital asset under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the provision

SRI DINESH DEVRAJ RANKA,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-8,, BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

Capital gain – Rs.5,65,24,370 (iv) Disallowance u/s. 14A – Rs.4,97,089 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the additions/disallowances, except for giving a marginal relief with regard to the disallowance made u/s. 14A. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, aggrieved by the order

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

capital gain at Rs. Nil. 8. The learned CIT(A), pursuant to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, confirmed the addition of Rs.8,36,25,000/- as per paragraph No.6.2 of his appellate Order. The learned AO noted that registration charges for the transaction has been paid for the property value of Rs.18,41,25,000/- whereas the sale

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

Gains from Business / Profession”. Expenses prescribed under sections 32 to 36 of the Act are not allowed for deduction under section 37 of the Act if it is not incurred for the purpose of business. Finance Bill, 2014, introduced explanation to section 37 of the Act deeming CSR expenditure to be an expenditure as not being incurred for the purpose

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