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

48, cannot be confused with the rate of tax liable to be charged on the income under the head ‘Capital gain’ so computed. Whereas, computation of capital gain is governed by section

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

48", "Section 50C", "Section 50D", "Section 53A", "Section 55" ], "issues": "The primary issue was determining the correct assessment year for taxing capital gains

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

sections 54,54B, 54D, 54E,\n54EA, 54EB. 54F, 54G and 54H, be\nchargeable to income-tax under the head\n"Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be\nthe income of the previous year in which the\ntransfer took place.\nSection 48

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

48", "Section 50C", "Section 53A", "Section 55" ], "issues": "The primary issue is the year of taxation for capital gains, specifically

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

48 of the Act. Accordingly we direct the AO to consider sale consideration of Rs.2,18,29,631/- instead of Rs.2,32,54,118/- as determined in respect of Villa No.13. 9.2 Now with regard to restriction of the claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act to Rs.71,67,207/- only instead of Rs.75,47,933/- as claimed

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

48 of the Act. Accordingly we direct the AO to consider sale consideration of Rs.2,18,29,631/- instead of Rs.2,32,54,118/- as determined in respect of Villa No.13. 9.2 Now with regard to restriction of the claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act to Rs.71,67,207/- only instead of Rs.75,47,933/- as claimed

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

48, cannot be confused with the rate of\ntax liable to be charged on the income under the head 'Capital gain' so\ncomputed. Whereas, computation of capital gain is governed by section

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

Capital gains" and shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which such money or other asset was received and for the purposes of section 48

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\nthe transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to\ntax under Section 45 read with Section 48

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

48,83,672, though assessee has not deposited that portion in the net sale consideration into the account scheme notified by the Central Govt. For this purpose, it is appropriate to go through the provisions of section 54(2) of the Act which are as follows:- “54. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case

M/S. S I MEDIA LLP, ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

48 for computing capital gains chargeable to income-tax, as the said increased cost of acquisition is deducted while computing capital gains chargeable to income-tax. The income is chargeable to tax u/s 4, which is a charging section

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

48,70,000 (excluding other charges) before the due date of filing the return itself which is far more than the amount of the capital gain. 7.8 After taking into considerations the above judicial precedents & the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that what is important to avail exemption is whether the assessee who received capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

48 to 53 re-computed the book profit for income tax\npurpose as under :\nProfit as per P & L A/c\nRs.63,03,360\nAdd: 1). Disallowance U/s 14A\nRs.37,82,496\n2). Net Capital Gain earned from\nSale of Land and from Sale\nOf shares as discussed para 4\nOf the assessment order i.e.,\nAmount credited to Capital\nReserve

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

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

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

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

section 48, the fair market value of the asset on the date\nof such conversion or treatment shall be deemed to be the\nfull value of the consideration received or accruing as a\nresult of the transfer of the capital asset.”\n19.\nHowever, the A.O has held that the income is\nchargeable to tax in respect of the Stock