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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains in accordance with section 70 of the Act. Consequently, the computation of gross total income as returned by the assessee was in accordance with law. Once the gross total income is restored to the figure declared in the return, the deduction under section 80G of the Act must also be computed with reference to such income. The restriction applied

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

43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial\nportion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion. On the other-hand\nboth these persons contended that the liability to capital gains\narose for the assessment year

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

43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial\nportion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion. On the other-hand\nboth these persons contended that the liability to capital gains\narose for the assessment year

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

43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial\nportion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion. On the other-hand\nboth these persons contended that the liability to capital gains\narose for the assessment year

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain is governed by section 48, but\nthe rates of tax, insofar as we are concerned in the present appeal, are\ngoverned by sections 111A and 115AD.\n9.6 Further, the adjustment made by the CPC under section 143(1)\nhas the effect of re-working the computation in a manner contrary to the\nspecific claim made by the assessee

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

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

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

43,452\nLess : Cost incurred during the year\nRs.10,31,416\nBalance Transfer to Capital Reserve A/c.\nRs.12,11,12,036\nRefer Note 1.2 to the Financial statements ==\nThe AO in the assessment order 143(3), dt.29.03.2016 already enclosed as\nAnnex-VIII – Page 48 to 53 re-computed the book profit for income tax\npurpose as under :\nProfit

SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

43 months 25 days, being more than 36 months as per the provisions of sec 2(42A). The Page 6 of 18 assessee submitted that out of the gross long term capital gains, assessee invested a sum of Rs. 49 lakhs in the form of capital gain bonds and claimed the same as deduction u/s. 54EC

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

43 days, which was beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AR requested to condone the delay. Considering the length of the delay, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue did not raise any objection if the delay is condoned and matter is decided on merit as per the provisions of law. In view

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

capital gains and no addition can be made as explained above. 43. In view of the above submissions made, as explained, there is no escapement of income. 44. In view of the above submissions made the appellant requests that the order as made be quashed or atleast all the additions made in the order be deleted and interest levied

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

M/S. S I MEDIA LLP, ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

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

Capital Gains’ is to compute total income chargeable to income-tax under the charging section under the different heads of income as stipulated u/s 14 , and hence double deduction is not permissible unless specifically provided by the statute. There is an authority on this principle vide Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment and order in the case of Escorts Limited

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

43 D of the Act. Since it is purely\na legal ground we admit the same.\n108. The elaborate submission of the assessee in this regard reads as under:-\n“The issue before the Apex Court relates to the interpretation to section 80HH\nrelevant to AY 1979-80 and 1980-81. The relevant section is reproduced hereunder:-\n\"80HH. Deduction