GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee, has arisen from the appellate order dated 07.07.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), NFAC,Delhi (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) (vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054203908(1)), for the assessment year 2011-12, which appeal before ld. CIT(A), NFAC in turn

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

D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(Appeals) dated 22.8.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “1) The learned CIT( A) erred in passing the order in the manner which he did. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred

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

43. Therefore in the assessee’s case, the Tax incidence on capital gains will arise only when the possession of the built up area is handed over together with occupancy certificate by the developer. Reliance was placed on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court:- - CIT v. Jeelani Basha, 256 ITR 282 - R. Vijayakshme v. Appu Hotels

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

D) Rs. 68,81,000/- 4.2 Further, the assessee against the taxable income at normal slab rate of Rs. 68,81,000/- claimed deduction under section 80G of the Act . ITA No.2194 & 2195/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 16 for Rs. 68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income of Rs. 36,78,25,370/- being taxable at special rate

SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

d) of section 269UA; 9. Capital asset has been defined in section 2(14) of the Act, as meaning "Property" of any kind held by the assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession. The above exhaustive definition is subject to the following exclusions like stock-in-trade, consumable stores or raw material held for the purpose

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

D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 30.09.2010 of CIT(A), LTU, relating to AY 1997-98. 2. During the previous year relevant to AY 1997-98, the Assessee was engaged in the business of Manufacturing and trading. The Assessee as Page 2 of 45 part

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

5 of 11 7. The assessee submitted that it had utilised the capital gain for purchase of another agricultural land and paid the following sums to the following persons under agreement for sale:- a) Sale Agreement with Ramakrishna.K.C. and Amount paid to the Vendor Rs.1,45,25,000 b) Balance Due to Ramakrishna.K.C. Payable at the time of Registration

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU vs. M/S. BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order dated 30.09.2019 of CIT(A), Mysuru, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that a sum of Rs.10 Crores cannot

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the assessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

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

capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah

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

5 of 35 gains of Rs.3,34,56,000/- as worked out above. At the time of filing the return of income the assessee did not raise any objection for issue of notice and admitted the capital gains as per his own calculations and filed the return of income. 6. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment before

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

43. It was submitted that the short-term capital loss of INR 55,00,89,891 arising on transfer of investment in Aigua Sprinkler has not been claimed as business loss. It was submitted that the short-term capital loss has been set off with the long-term capital gain of INR 2,00,17,830 arising on the slump

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

43, Devarakagganahalli, Maralwadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, sold to Maruthi Education Trust (Regd.) vide Sale Deed dated 2.5.2008. 10.9 Accordingly, the AO brought the capital gain emanating from the above two transactions as long term capital gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

43, Devarakagganahalli, Maralwadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, sold to Maruthi Education Trust (Regd.) vide Sale Deed dated 2.5.2008. 10.9 Accordingly, the AO brought the capital gain emanating from the above two transactions as long term capital gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

43, Devarakagganahalli, Maralwadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, sold to Maruthi Education Trust (Regd.) vide Sale Deed dated 2.5.2008. 10.9 Accordingly, the AO brought the capital gain emanating from the above two transactions as long term capital gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

43, Devarakagganahalli, Maralwadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, sold to Maruthi Education Trust (Regd.) vide Sale Deed dated 2.5.2008. 10.9 Accordingly, the AO brought the capital gain emanating from the above two transactions as long term capital gain in these two assessment years. 10.10 Now the contention of the ld. AR is that proceedings initiated by the AO u/s. 153C

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

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that Assessment Year. Therefore the case was rightly reopened by the AO. The learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed appeal of the assessee. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the Order of learned

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

43 of 50 Department, he is satisfied about escarpment of income. Moreover, in the order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the AO to dispose of the objections raised by the assessee against validity of reopening available on pages 171 to 176 of the paper book, it is specifically observed by the AO in Para 2 on page 173 that there

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

43 of 50 Department, he is satisfied about escarpment of income. Moreover, in the order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the AO to dispose of the objections raised by the assessee against validity of reopening available on pages 171 to 176 of the paper book, it is specifically observed by the AO in Para 2 on page 173 that there