M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

Gains provision. We are concerned with sub clause (xiii) of Sec 47 of the Act in which the statute imposed some conditions by way of proviso to Section 47 (xiii) of the Act. In sub clause (xiii) of Sec 47, the statute had not recognized transfer of capital

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

section 80G of the Act for Rs. 16,28,978/- only. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual, during the year under consideration derived income under the house property, business income, capital gain and other sources. In the return of income, the assessee declared Gross Total Income-GTI of Rs. 37,47

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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains into tax in the assessment

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

capital gains on JDA to tax. In the instant case, the cost which was allowed to be claimed by the assessee as per assessment order dated 10/02/20215was Rs.1,67,28,000/- for an area of 3,64,336 sq. ft. thus cost per sq ft. being Rs.45.91 sq. ft. The assessee is eligible to claim the per sq.ft. rate. • However

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

capital gains on JDA to tax. In the instant case, the cost which was allowed to be claimed by the assessee as per assessment order dated 10/02/20215was Rs.1,67,28,000/- for an area of 3,64,336 sq. ft. thus cost per sq ft. being Rs.45.91 sq. ft. The assessee is eligible to claim the per sq.ft. rate. • However

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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains into tax in the assessment

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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to bring the capital gains into tax in the assessment

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

gain shall be the deemed\nincome of the year of transfer of the capital asset. In the context of\nJDA transactions, it is important to analysis the point in time in\nwhich the transfer can be said to have taken place for the purposes\nof Section 45.\n7.4 Section 2(47

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 80G of the Act for Rs. 16,28,978/- only.\n4. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual, during the\nyear under consideration derived income under the house property,\nbusiness income, capital gain and other sources. In the return of income,\nthe assessee declared Gross Total Income-GTI of Rs. 37,47

MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

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

47)(v) of the Act, Section 53A could be invoked. But\nthe requirement of written agreement is essential for invoking section 53A of\nthe Transfer of Property Act. The assessee further submitted that the\npossession was given based on oral understanding and not based on any\nagreement in writing and registered. The assessee, therefore, requested that\nthe Capital Gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

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

gain which arises from the alleged transfer of capital\nasset could be brought to tax under section 45 r.w.s.48 of\nthe Act. We hold so. The grounds of appeal raised by\nassessee are thus, allowed.\n27. This brings us to another aspect of the matter as to whether\nthe provisions of Section 2(47

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

capital gain was Nil. Since the original landlord i.e Smt. Chanamma and others filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka vide writ petition No.51294/2014 and W.P No.35243/2014 where whose land was acquired by the BDA to form the layout. Before the construction based on the writ petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka

SHRI. K V SATISH BABU [HUF],MYSURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2[1], MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

Gains upholding the view that the date of entering into the joint development agreement i.e., 16/09/2010 would be the date of transfer of the said capital asset under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the provision of section 2[47

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

capital gain on a “deemed" basis by\nestimating the cost of construction of the assessee's share of flats at\n*1,000 per sq. ft., leading to an addition of ₹3,59,10,000 as long-term\ncapital gain in the year under consideration.\n16.2 We note that the provisions of section 2(47

SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

capital gains by the revenue authorities. The Ld.AR submitted as under: 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.AO did not appreciate and consider that the holding period is from the day, the right to acquire shares came into existence in the previous company being the grant followed by vesting, and merely because of exchange of shares consequent to the amalgamation/merger

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

section 10(38) before proceeding further. “Incomes not included in total income. 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included— ……… 38) any income arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being an equity share in a company

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

section 10(38) before proceeding further. “Incomes not included in total income. 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included— ……… 38) any income arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being an equity share in a company

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

section 10(38) before proceeding further. “Incomes not included in total income. 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included— ……… 38) any income arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being an equity share in a company