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

44,935\n7,78,753\n3.1 There was a search conducted in the case of Sri Alagappa\nAnnamalai on 04/07/2019, which was concluded on 03/09/2019.\nA sworn statement was recorded from Sri Alagappa Annamalai on\n04/07/2019 and 05/07/2019. In course of the statement Sri\nAlagappa Annamalai stated in answer to Q.No.33 as under :-\n“Q.No.33 Under the circumstances

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

44,935\n5,11,492\n7,78,753\n3.1 There was a search conducted in the case of Sri Alagappa\nAnnamalai on 04/07/2019, which was concluded on 03/09/2019.\nA sworn statement was recorded from Sri Alagappa Annamalai on\n04/07/2019 and 05/07/2019. In course of the statement Sri\nAlagappa Annamalai stated in answer to Q.No.33 as under :-\n“Q.No

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

44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) gave full relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made towards bad debts written off. With regard to unexplained expenditure incurred towards property improvement, the CIT(A) gave partial relief

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

44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) gave full relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made towards bad debts written off. With regard to unexplained expenditure incurred towards property improvement, the CIT(A) gave partial relief

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

44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) gave full relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made towards bad debts written off. With regard to unexplained expenditure incurred towards property improvement, the CIT(A) gave partial relief

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

44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) gave full relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made towards bad debts written off. With regard to unexplained expenditure incurred towards property improvement, the CIT(A) gave partial relief

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

44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) gave full relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made towards bad debts written off. With regard to unexplained expenditure incurred towards property improvement, the CIT(A) gave partial relief

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

Section 45(5A) of the Act which is applicable\nfor the individuals and HUF and not applicable to the appellant which\nis a Registered partnership Firm.\n9. Without prejudice to the above ground it is urged that the Id. CIT(A)\nought to have appreciated the act that the delivery of possession of\nbuilt

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, in such a case, the value offered for tax by the assessee is to be adopted and section 50C does not apply to the case of the assessee. Page 26 of 33 This amendment take effect as retrospective in nature and this view is supported by the decisions of the coordinate benches of ITAT, which are as under

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

44,91,624/-. Page 4 of 39 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee but the allocation of common expenses were not accepted by the Ld.CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to further add, alter or amend each one of the above grounds of appeal” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Gain". The assessee did not receive the sum in question for giving up any source of income as the assessee was free to exploit independently owned IPR as well as Foreground information and therefore the argument that the sum received is capital receipt for losing a source of income and therefore not chargeable to tax, is devoid of any merits

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

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

44 of 55 6.7 Since the said building was constructed in the year 1970 was in dilapidated condition and was not fit for either commercial purposes or industrial use. To earn income out of the shed by renting it out, it was essential for the partners of the firm to demolish and construct a new shed of 19,500 square

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

Gains’. After satisfying himself on the above issue, the assessing officer issued another notice u/s. 142(1) dated 25.11.2016 seeking details of deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act. The assessing officer has requested for approval of the Pr. CIT for converting the case from limited to complete scrutiny. The approval was communicated to assessing officer on 29.11.2016. However

M/S. ZASH TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

section\n55(2b) of the Act.\n3. Facts of the case are that during the relevant previous year, the\nassessee had transferred 6,12,01,078 Wipro shares. The\ncomputation of capital gains on such transfer of Wipro shares is\nsummarized hereunder:\n\nParticulars\nSection\nReference\nTotal Sale\nTotal Cost of\nacquisition\nLong term capital\ngain/(loss)\n\n180

VINAY KONCHADY SHENOY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

Capital Gain on sale of property to the extent of Rs.1,44,253/- 2.3 During the year, the assessee had sold residential property to the extent of Rs.77,50,000/- on 20.04.2019. Accordingly, the purchaser deducted TDS of Rs. 77,500/- (percentage on consideration paid) and the same is reflected in 26AS statement. 2.4 The Return of income filed

NAMITHA DEENADAYALU NAIDU ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

44,98,532/- is not eligible and accordingly capital gain of Rs.4,30,81,672/- received on sale consideration and claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act is disallowed and brought to tax under the head capital gains. 3.1 Further, on second residential unit, which was constructed on the vacant land adjacent to the new residential property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against