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 asset. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the definition of income under section 2(24) of the Act includes gains chargeable under section 45 of the Act and therefore erred in law to conclude that gains arising on buy-back of shares is taxable under section 46A

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

46A, copy of the sale deed of the new asset dated 23.03.2018, computation of capital gains filed before the A.O. during the remand proceedings, copy of the written submissions filed before the lower authorities, the case laws relied on, etc. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income Tax Authorities. 7. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other

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

capital gains by making re-calculation based on the material / documentary evidence available with the department in the reopened assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 06/12/2019. (B) The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji however has erred in not observing the fact that the assessee company has not furnished any proofs/documents/details for cost

SMT.VANI SHREE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 54F of the Act for the entire capital gains that arouse on the JDA on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law in holding that the capital gain is chargeable in the assessment year 2015-16 as against assessment year 20 2- 13 on the facts and circumstances

SRI G MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri G. Muniraju, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S/O. Late Shri Chikkaveeraiah, Ward – 7[2][4], 7Th Floor, Bmtc Building, No.47, Uddanahalli Village, Tavarekere Village, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru South Taluk – 560 082. Bangalore – 560 095. Pan : Akapm 4763 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Lakshmi K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019

section (I) shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" relating to long-term capital assets of the previous year in which such new asset is transferred.'. 10. From the extract as mentioned above, it is clear that the entire sale consideration has to be invested in order to claim full exemption. The Page

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MONICA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

capital gains require to be recomputed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act and further the calculation of interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act is not in accordance

ITO, BANGALORE vs. DR. ARVIND GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

capital gains require to be recomputed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act and further the calculation of interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act is not in accordance

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MARGRIT GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

capital gains require to be recomputed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act and further the calculation of interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act is not in accordance

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS.ANITHA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

capital gains require to be recomputed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without Prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law in charging the interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act and further the calculation of interest under section 234 A and 234 B of the Act is not in accordance

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

capital gain. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee submitted detailed written submissions along with the documentary evidence in support of his submissions and filed evidences. However, the learned CIT(A) did not accept the evidence filed by the assessee and applied Rule 46A observing that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

Capital Gains' as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anarkali Sarabai (supra) and Karthikeya Sarabai (supra) and is not exempt ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 22 of 31 from tax. Further the investment in preference shares is to be regarded as an investment in an unlisted and unquoted security and is therefore definitely exigible

M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), BANGLAOORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

Capital Gains' as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anarkali Sarabai (supra) and Karthikeya Sarabai (supra) and is not exempt ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 22 of 31 from tax. Further the investment in preference shares is to be regarded as an investment in an unlisted and unquoted security and is therefore definitely exigible

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gain in the hands of the recipient in accordance with the provisions of Section 46A of the Act and no such amount shall be treated as dividend in view of the provisions of Section 2(22)(iv) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has accepted that the capital

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 offered to tax in 4,49,31,206 the Return of income filed by the Assessee Page 11 of 31 ITA Nos. 50 & 93/Bang/2020 4.3 The Ld.AR submitted that, the difference between the book value of the division and the net-worth of the division as per section 50B is due to the computation of the written down

DEVAPPA MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain.” Page 7 of 11 12. From a plain reading of the section, it is clear that the assessee is entitled for the claim of deduction provided the agricultural land is purchased within two years after the date of sale of agricultural land. In assessee’s case, the agricultural land is sold on 14.2.2014 (50% share) and the agricultural

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, KALABURGI vs. SHRI. SANTHOSH VERGHESE, KALABURGI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

46A. 3. The Ltd. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the asset transferred was not belonging to business of 'Industrial undertaking' to Page 2 of 6 be eligible for claiming deduction u/s 54G, and the asset was merely belonging to the business of running a single cinema theatre/hall, by an individual. 4. In the facts and circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. UMA RUGMINI, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

section (3) of rule 46A of Income tax rules” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a housewife and not filed her return of income. Based on the information through the INSIGHT PORTAL, the AO had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, seeking the details about the financial transactions undertaken by her. Before that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUNI REDDY SANTHOSH REDDY, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

Capital Gains Account Scheme for the future utilization within the provisions of section 54F of the Act. There is no dispute that the investment in another plot was made of Rs. 30,00,000/- on 28/11/2015, but since the said amount had not been retained by the appellant in pursuance to the prescribed norm as provided

SMT. TUPEL RAJA IYENGAR SHAKUNTHALA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Tupel Raja Iyengar Shakuntala, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer #25/4, Flat No.204, Ward-7(2)(4), Ff Mahaveer Aspen Apartments, Bangalore. 6Th Main Road, Yelachenahalli, K. P. Main Road, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan : Bfgps 4816 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 O R D E R

46A of the Rules, it is seen that the assessee had filed the computation of capital gains before the CIT(A). As per this computation, it is seen that the assessee had computed the long term capital gains (LTCC) at Rs.19,54,873/- on the sale proceeds of the said property at Rs.46,65,000/-, after claiming indexed cost