SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

6) Nothing contained in this paragraph or in paragraph 11 shall affect the right or claim which any person may have against the person to whom any payment is made under this paragraph.' 40. The above Capital Gain Account scheme thus provides for opening of a bank account by the assessee intending to avail of the benefit under section

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

capital gains are fulfilled. 6. It should have been appreciated that only the unutilized amount has to be invested in a special account u/s 54(2) and when there is such utilization before the date of filing u/s 139, which includes 139(4), the requirement of deposit in special account does not arise. 7. The NFAC ought to have appreciated

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

6 to 8 are regarding sustaining addition of capital gain on transfer of property to M/s. Gopalan Enterprises at Rs.3,36,24,479. 17. The assessee has received Rs.14crores from M/s.Gopalan Enterprises for agreeing to transfer the land and building vide agreement dated 29.11.2006. The sale agreement was for transfer of land for Rs.9 crores and Rs.5 crores was towards

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

6) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there are judicial precedence supporting the claim of the Appellant and he ought to have accepted the explanation and refrained from disallowing the claim of the Appellant. 7) The learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the cost of improvement of Rs.5,72,000/- claimed by the Appellant

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

6 of 16 8.1 The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 112 and a case law compilation having pages 174 to 205 and submitted that section 70(2) clearly permits set-off of short-term capital loss against income under the head “Capital gains” from any other capital asset. The provision does

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

6 of 45 8. On the non-taxability of consideration received on sale of transportation business/undertaking, the Tribunal held that the transfer in question was not a “Slump Sale” and that it was case of itemized sale of assets and liabilities. The final conclusions in this regard are at Para-92 of the Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal thereafter gave

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

section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 26. The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G.Patel (supra) is a case where the deed of reconstitution specifically referred to release of rights of the outgoing partners in the assets of the partnership and further

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

capital gains. 1.9. The learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the learned AO and has considered section 43(6

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:

6) of section 43; Page 3 of 18 (b) in the case of capital assets in respect of which the whole of the expenditure has been allowed or is allowable as a deduction under section 35AD, nil; and (c) in the case of other assets, the book value of such assets. A reading of Sec.50B (1) of the Act read

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

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 to the assessee and that there was no belief regarding escapement of income

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

6. In the instant case, Assessing Officer noticed from the case records produced by the Assistant Commissioner, the original owners submitted layout plan as approved by the local Grama Panchayat authorities. Subsequent to receipt of the conversion order, the original owners gave an undertaking before the Assistant Commissioner that the land would be used for the purpose for which

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, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

6,48,41,697 12,11,12,036 17,08,91,754 Less : Long Term Capital loss on Sale Shares 1,52,25,759 45,05,000 1,52,25,759 Net Long Term Capital Gain 4,96,15,938 11,66,07,036 15,56,65,995 From the above it will be clear that

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

6 of 35 assessee’s HUF in respect of property bearing survey No.136/1 situated at Munnekolallu Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. On verification of the assessee’s return of income for the assessment year 2009-10, it was noticed that assessee had not paid capital gain tax on account of this transaction, as such, assessment was reopened after duly

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

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