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

41,08,845 was offered for taxation. The assessee also claimed deduction for the improvement made to the interest for expenditure of Rs. 5,72,000 was incurred. 4. The AO however did not allow the claim of cost of improvement by way of interiors on the ground that the appellant did not produce bills even though the particulars

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

41. The AO, after a detailed analysis of the aforesaid agreements came to the conclusion that the transfer was effective in the current Assessment year in terms of section 2(47) of the Act and therefore the impugned transaction was exigible to LTCG. The AO accordingly proceeded to assess capital gains at the figure

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

41 (2). Taxing gain on slump sale as capital gain is also not possible because the Apex Court following the decision in CIT V. B. C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) held that the charging section and the computation sections are integrated code and if one fails other fails. If the computation sections fail then even the charging section fails

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

4 of 13 (SIPCOT) on lease for a period of 99 Years for the purpose of setting up a unit for designing, importing, exporting, dealing in and manufacture of wrist watch straps. The assessee put up a factory on the leasehold land and carried on the business of manufacture of wrist watch straps from 1992. 7. Due to operational difficulties

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

4. Most importantly the judgment in the above mentioned cases would decide a very important question-"what is the definition of a converted land in the state of Karnataka." " The order of this Tribunal will confine itself to deciding the taxability or otherwise of the gains arising from the sale of the lands in question in accordance with the provisions

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

41,50,000/- Indexed cost of acquisition Rs.1,28,93,400/- ------------------- Rs.2,00,43,400/- Rs.5,24,56,600/- ” Net capital gain chargeable to tax 10. Accordingly, capital gain in question was brought to tax by the AO. 11. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings on the ground that reasons recorded was not provided

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

4. Most importantly the judgment in the above mentioned cases would decide a very important question-"what is the definition of a converted land in the state of Karnataka." " The order of this Tribunal will confine itself to deciding the taxability or otherwise of the gains arising from the sale of the lands in question in accordance with the provisions

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

41 ) had clarified this position by holding that when an assessee purchases a flat to be constructed by Delhi Development Authority ("DDA" for short) for which allotment letter is issued, the date of such allotment would be relevant date for the purpose of capital gain tax as a date of acquisition. It was noted that such allotment is final unless

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

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

4. Ld.AO also noted that, assessee vide sale deed dated 30/07/2014 sold vacant site bearing 432 formed by HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Bangalore, at Narasipura layout, for consideration of Rs.1,28,40,000/-. Ld.AO noted that possession of the property was not taken by assessee and registered sale deed was not executed in favour of assessee

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

4 years prior to the transfer of original asset and that the assessee constructed the residential house on the same property which is valued at Rs.3,12,13,249/-, the Capital gain was restricted to Rs.14,90,260/-. 9. In the present facts of the case, there is no dispute that assessee is the owner of the property, in respect

SRI MAHENDRASINGH RAMSINGH JADAV,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

41 ) had clarified this position by holding that when an assessee purchases a flat to be constructed by Delhi Development Authority ("DDA" for short) for which allotment letter is issued, the date of such allotment would be relevant date for the purpose of capital gain tax as a date of acquisition. It was noted that such allotment is final unless

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

41. Being so, the argument of the learned AR that the capital gains are to be taxed in the present case in the assessment year 2005-2006 is not tenable. The transferee only made payment of refundable deposit of Rs.30 lakhs and other necessary permission so as to commence the construction not at all commenced and there was no progress

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

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— (a) to (d) .... (e)transactional net margin method, by which,— IT(TP) A No. 270/Bang/2021 Tyco Fire and Security India Pvt.Ltd

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

capital gains as returned by the Appellant. They failed to prove their contention with material evidence to that effect. Hence the addition of Page 2 of 15 Rs.12,54,98,299 made as revenue profits deserves to be deleted. 3. The Learned Authorities Below have erred in restricting the credit to be given to TDS at Rs.39

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this is the allegation of the AO that LTCG was arranged by Shri Jagdish Purohit for present assessee also, the AO has stated why an amount of @ 3% of total LTCG claim in each year should not be added to the assessee

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this is the allegation of the AO that LTCG was arranged by Shri Jagdish Purohit for present assessee also, the AO has stated why an amount of @ 3% of total LTCG claim in each year should not be added to the assessee

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this is the allegation of the AO that LTCG was arranged by Shri Jagdish Purohit for present assessee also, the AO has stated why an amount of @ 3% of total LTCG claim in each year should not be added to the assessee

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this is the allegation of the AO that LTCG was arranged by Shri Jagdish Purohit for present assessee also, the AO has stated why an amount of @ 3% of total LTCG claim in each year should not be added to the assessee