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

capital gains which has not been utilised under section 54F has to be charged under section 45 as income of the previous year, after the expiry of three years from the date of sale of the asset which in the present case is for the assessment year 1993-94." 44. At this stage, we may also note that the subject

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

45: & CO 86/Bang/2015 Page 6 of 24 Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) the assessee,— (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after

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

5. The NFAC erred in not granting relief u/s 54 as all the conditions necessary for grant of relief in respect of the long term 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

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

45(1) of the Act brings to tax any capital gain that accrues or arises on transfer of a capital asset. The capital gain is charged to tax in the previous year in which the transfer takes place. Section 2(47) defines what is transfer and it reads as follows : Page 5

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains to tax under the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by concluding that section 47 of the Act is limited in its application only to section 45 of the Act and does not apply to buy-back of shares to which provisions of section 46A of the Act also applies. 5

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains to tax under the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by concluding that section 47 of the Act is limited in its application only to section 45 of the Act and does not apply to buy-back of shares to which provisions of section 46A of the Act also applies. 5

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

gains tax on transfer of capital asset. Actual receipt of profit is not a relevant consideration. Once the profits have arisen in the accounting year out of the transfer of capital asset, it would be sufficient to attract liability u/s. 45 of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that there was no transfer in the assessment year under

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

Capital gains u/s. 45 of the Act. To attract section 41 (2), the subject matter should be depreciable assets and the consideration received should be capable of allocation Page 5

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

45, the amount\nchargeable to income-tax as income of such\nspecified entity under that sub-section which\nis attributable to the capital asset being\ntransferred by the specified entity, calculated\nin the prescribed manner:\nProvided............”\n12. On combined reading of these provisions,\nany profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital\nasset with the exception as saved

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

45, the amount\nchargeable to income-tax as income of such\nspecified entity under that sub-section which\nis attributable to the capital asset being\ntransferred by the specified entity, calculated\nin the prescribed manner:\nProvided.................................\"\n12. On combined reading of these provisions,\nany profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital\nasset with the exception as saved

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

45, the amount\nchargeable to income-tax as income of such\nspecified entity under that sub-section which\nis attributable to the capital asset being\ntransferred by the specified entity, calculated\nin the prescribed manner:\nProvided.. \"\n12. On combined reading of these provisions,\nany profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital\nasset with the exception

SMT.ANUPAMA NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

45 as income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of transfer of the asset expired. The period of three years in the case of the assessee expires on 31.1.2015 therefore amount of capital gain which was not utilized by the assessee but was deposited in the capital gain account shall be charged

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

capital gains conversion of investment, into stock in trade but postpones the charge of tax to the time, such stock in trade is sold or transferred. Once converted into stock in trade, the asset will continue to be treated as stock in trade, as mentioned in the section itself. Application of provisions of Section 45(2) will not reconvert

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

5 of 16 7. However, the learned CIT(A) examined the facts of the case, the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act, and the submissions of the appellant. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had earned long term capital gains taxable

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

45 of the Act provides that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income tax under the head "Capital gains". Capital Gains is of two types. Short-term capital gains and long term capital gains. Depending upon the nature of capital gains the liability

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

45, Part SF 646 PT, 647 PT, 648 PT 650 PT, SIPCOT Complex 1, Hosur- 635126 from State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd Page 4 of 13 (SIPCOT) on lease for a period of 99 Years for the purpose of setting up a unit for designing, importing, exporting, dealing in and manufacture of wrist watch straps. The assessee

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

45(4) of the Act, when the capital asset of the firm are distributed on dissolution or otherwise, the firm needs to pay capital gain tax. For the purpose of paying capital gain tax, the fair market value of the assets on the date of such distribution is deemed to be the full value of the consideration

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

45(4) of the Act, when the capital asset of the firm are distributed on dissolution or otherwise, the firm needs to pay capital gain tax. For the purpose of paying capital gain tax, the fair market value of the assets on the date of such distribution is deemed to be the full value of the consideration

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 gains in view of section 2(14) read with sections 45 and 48 of the Act ? " Page 13 of 66 10.5The Hon'ble Court after considering the averments of both parties and the orders of the authorities below held as under : • "5