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

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

5\n(SC)] while considering the provision of Section 53 of the\nTP Act in the context of capital gains

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

Section 2(31) of the Act define person to include an individual as well as a firm. Therefore, merely because the land was acquired from the firm at the guideline value & the transfer under the JDA is also required to be considered at the same guideline value that does not mean the capital gain accruing as a result

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

Section 2(31) of the Act define person to include an individual as well as a firm. Therefore, merely because the land was acquired from the firm at the guideline value & the transfer under the JDA is also required to be considered at the same guideline value that does not mean the capital gain accruing as a result

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

5\n(SC)] while considering the provision of Section 53 of the\nTP Act in the context of capital gains

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

5\n(SC)] while considering the provision of Section 53 of the\nTP Act in the context of capital gains

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

capital gain. The learned D.R. failed to point out any change in the facts and circumstances even this impugned year. Therefore, applying the principle of consistency as formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992] 193 ITR 321 we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

Capital gains' is a loss and the assessee has income assessable under any other head of income, the assessee shall not be entitled to have such loss set off against income under the other head. 5. The provisions of 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

section 47(xiii) proviso (a) or (c) of the Act and therefore, the order of the AO treating the value of the assets and liabilities of the firm, as capital gain obtained by way of transfer of capital asset liable to be taxed under the head long term capital gains u/s 45(4) of the Act is not sustainable

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

section 54F, it is clear that the assessee is required to purchase within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place or constructed one residential house within a period of three years after the date of sale of capital asset. In the instant case, the assessee sold the capital asset

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

Capital Gains Accounts Scheme as mandated under IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 4 of 16 section 54(2) of the Act. 5

PIONEER INDEPENDENT TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

Capital Gain submitted by the assessee without making necessary enquiries or verifying the issue required as per law" is contrary to the material on record, and thus, the very invocation of Section 263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and, on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Capital Gain u/s.45 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 12.12.2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book in support of his case. 5. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee

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

sections": [ "139(5)", "143(1)", "147", "148", "144", "50C", "2(47)", "45", "48", "53A", "56(2)(x)" ], "issues": "Whether a sale transaction, subsequently cancelled and where no consideration was passed or possession transferred, can be considered a 'transfer' for capital gains

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

5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved

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

5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved

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

5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved