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

41,697/- has long term\ncapital gain from the said transaction. Hence it is proposed to tax the balance amount of\nRs.10,60,50,057/- under the head long term capital gain.\nPage 19 of 21\nITA No.1181/Bang/2025\n1. The assessee company entered an Agreement to sell' dated 14-08-2012 with\nVirgo Realtors Private Ltd., for the vacant land

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

capital gain on transfer of flats based on the consideration agreed by the assessee with the developer. The CIT(A) has directed the AO to adjust the cost of flats based on the amount already taxed for sale of land. From these facts, it is clear that the CIT(A) has perused the various documents related to the impugned transaction

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

capital gain on transfer of flats based on the consideration agreed by the assessee with the developer. The CIT(A) has directed the AO to adjust the cost of flats based on the amount already taxed for sale of land. From these facts, it is clear that the CIT(A) has perused the various documents related to the impugned transaction

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

capital gain on transfer of flats based on the consideration agreed by the assessee with the developer. The CIT(A) has directed the AO to adjust the cost of flats based on the amount already taxed for sale of land. From these facts, it is clear that the CIT(A) has perused the various documents related to the impugned transaction

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

capital gain on transfer of flats based on the consideration agreed by the assessee with the developer. The CIT(A) has directed the AO to adjust the cost of flats based on the amount already taxed for sale of land. From these facts, it is clear that the CIT(A) has perused the various documents related to the impugned transaction

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

capital gain on transfer of flats based on the consideration agreed by the assessee with the developer. The CIT(A) has directed the AO to adjust the cost of flats based on the amount already taxed for sale of land. From these facts, it is clear that the CIT(A) has perused the various documents related to the impugned transaction

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

capital gain\n\nRs.\n5,00,000/-\nRs.2,71,30,392/-\nRs.1,65,20,020/-\nRs.2,41,15,265/-\n\n22.\nThe above computed LTCG was offered by the assessee to tax in\nthe year under consideration.\n23.\nThe assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that for\nmaking sale of flats, he incurred commission expenses and legal expense\nof Rs.5

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

41[ten] per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where— (a) the assessee claims

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

41. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. The simple issue involved in this ground is that assessee has in fact no balances with the IndusInd bank as per the bank statement. But zonal accounts, the trial balance is showing balances with the banks. Therefore, it is the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BAQNGALORE vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED , BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

41. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. The simple issue involved in this ground is that assessee has in fact no balances with the IndusInd bank as per the bank statement. But zonal accounts, the trial balance is showing balances with the banks. Therefore, it is the case

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

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

capital gain\n\nRs.\n5,00,000/-\nRs.2,71,30,392/-\nRs.1,65,20,020/-\nRs.2,41,15,265/-\n\n22. The above computed LTCG was offered by the assessee to tax in\nthe year under consideration.\n\n23. The assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that for\nmaking sale of flats, he incurred commission expenses and legal expense

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

capital creditors. The ld. Commissioner has noted that the exchange gain, which constitutes business income of the assessee, has been reduced while determining the total income in the computation of income. This adjustment, according to the ld. Commissioner, was not examined by the AO during the course of assessment. 8. On the basis of these observations, the Principal Commissioner

MR. FIROZ AHAMMAD MUJAWAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Firoz Ahammad, Vs. Ito, Acharya Iti No 15, 1St Cross 1St Stage Peenya Ward – 3(3)(4), Industrial Estate, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058, Karnataka. Pan : Agqpm 8839 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh G, Ca Revenue By : Shri.Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

41,000/- towards cash deposits in bank account. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income on 18.07.2017 declaring gross total income of Rs.6,85,225/- and total income of Rs.5,29,730/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,55,500/- under Chapter VI A of the Act. In the income tax return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

41,770/-. Assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the IT Act, on 23.09.2021 at a total assessed income of Rs.56,09,42,530/- after making an addition of Rs.21,45,00,000/- on account of premium accrued on RPS under Income from other sources. 9. The ld. AR relied on the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

41,770/-. Assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the IT Act, on 23.09.2021 at a total assessed income of Rs.56,09,42,530/- after making an addition of Rs.21,45,00,000/- on account of premium accrued on RPS under Income from other sources. 9. The ld. AR relied on the order

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

gain of Rs.28,65,882/-in the financial year 2014-15 in the scrip of M/s GCM Securities Limited, M/s Unno Industries, M/s Pearl Electric Limited, M/s Mahaveer Advanced Rem and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the act. During the course of search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Act, it was found that

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

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

41,31,065/-\n2. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking\norder on the issue considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India\nin the case of South Indian Bank Ltd and other judicial pronouncements pointed\nout by the appellant.\n2. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact