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

42 of Paper book in ITA 776/Bang/2024.\n3.4 Thereafter Sri Alagappa Muthiah retracted the statement vide\nletter dated 04/02/2020 filed before DDIT [Inv.], Unit-3[4],\nBengaluru along with an Affidavit. The retraction was also filed\nbefore the A.O. vide letter dated 06/02/2020 along with another\nAffidavit.\n3.5 Thus, the retraction has been filed within 6 months from the\ndate

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

42 of Paper book in ITA 776/Bang/2024.\n3.4 Thereafter Sri Alagappa Muthiah retracted the statement vide\nletter dated 04/02/2020 filed before DDIT [Inv.], Unit-3[4],\nBengaluru along with an Affidavit. The retraction was also filed\nbefore the A.O. vide letter dated 06/02/2020 along with another\nAffidavit.\n3.5 Thus, the retraction has been filed within 6 months from the\ndate

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

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

gain\nwhich arises from the transfer of a capital asset, which\ncould be brought to tax under Section 45 read with Section\n48 of the Income Tax Act.\n13. The assessee in the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the\nappeal late before the Tribunal has also mentioned the\nfactual aspects and the legal dispute and has stated on oath

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

Capital Gain\n6,48,41,697\n1. In response, the appellant had furnished a copy of the same statement\nas mentioned above and a copy of four purchase deeds amounting to\nRs.4,42,20,000/- but did not produce any evidence as to how it claimed cost of\nacquisition at Rs.8,45,28,050/- in place of Rs.4,42

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

section 10(38) of the Act. Such observation during the assessment proceedings provides a reason to investigate the matter in detail and the same cannot take the place of the evidence. But in the case in hand, there was no enquiry conducted either by the SEBI or the stock exchange with respect to rigging up of the share price

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

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

42,000/- only. The impugned capital gain was added to the total\nincome of the assessee.\n10. The AO further found that during the year under dispute the\nassessee has sold 15 flats “SJR Plaza City Project” and 14 Flats in “Mantri\nPremiro Projects” on which received consideration of Rs. 7,53,77,252/-\nand

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

42. The appellant had fully declared the capital gains as per the return of income filed u/s.139. Further there are no undisclosed transactions. The appellant had fully accounted and declared all the income including income from capital gains and no addition can be made as explained above. 43. In view of the above submissions made, as explained, there

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 is charged in the hands of the assessee which is not correct in view of the provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act. He submitted the fact that assessee is individual and wife of Shri. Rajesh Gundu Rao who gifted the property to the wife which is being sold. Shri. Rajesh Gundu Rao acquired part

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

42 taxmann.com 132 (Madras) d) Wipro Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2016) 382 ITR 179 (Karnataka) e) CIT vs. Wipro Ltd. in ITA No. 507 of 2002 dated 25.08.2010- Karnataka High Court f) CIT vs. Gokaldas Images Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2020) TaxCorp DT 83685 (Karnataka) 6. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. Page

SARITHA FLAVINA DSOUZA,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

section 48 of the Act. 8. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 9. Before the leaned CIT(A), the assessee argued that the AO erred in treating the gross sale consideration as capital gain without deducting the cost of acquisition. She submitted that the impugned property was jointly purchased by her father and mother

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

42,685 above 3.10 He submitted that the Assessee had filed detailed submission vide submission dated 10.11.2017 and 04.12.2017 in response to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. As far as Ld. AO’s specific query of the copy of the cash receipts that got seized by the search party, the Assessee vide submission dated 10.11.2017, Para

SRI. SWAMIAPPAN ANAND KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

42,000/-represents Sale Consideration attributable to the Sale of agricultural lands and not chargeable to capital gain tax. However, the ld. AO has rejected the Assessee's contention on the following grounds: i. No Bills/vouchers were produced in support of Sale of Agricultural products. ii. The revenue records submitted by the Assessee did not specify the nature of crops

SMT. SWAMIAPPAN PUNITHAVATHI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

42,000/-represents Sale Consideration attributable to the Sale of agricultural lands and not chargeable to capital gain tax. However, the ld. AO has rejected the Assessee's contention on the following grounds: i. No Bills/vouchers were produced in support of Sale of Agricultural products. ii. The revenue records submitted by the Assessee did not specify the nature of crops