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

2,74,00,000/-, and claimed exemption under section 54 amounting to Rs. 1,64,74,870/-. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54 as the assessee has not utilized the capital gains for the purchase or construction of new asset, and also that the assessee has not deposited the capital gains for construction

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

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

2], Chennai [(2020) 115 taxmann.com 5\n(SC)] while considering the provision of Section 53 of the\nTP Act in the context of capital gains

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

2], Chennai [(2020) 115 taxmann.com 5\n(SC)] while considering the provision of Section 53 of the\nTP Act in the context of capital gains

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

5 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nco-operative banks are essentially also a co-operative society. As regards\nthe interest income for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the\nCIT(A) held that the same is assessed as “Income from Other Sources”. In\nholding so, the CIT(A) relied on the judgment

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

2], Chennai [(2020) 115 taxmann.com 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A,\nclause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section\n23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34,4A,, section 35 and\nsection 37 of the Wealth-tax Act. 1957 (27 of 1957). shall, with\nnecessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they\napply

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

5 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nco-operative banks are essentially also a co-operative society. As regards\nthe interest income for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the\nCIT(A) held that the same is assessed as \"Income from Other Sources\". In\nholding so, the CIT(A) relied on the judgment

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

5 sq. ft of fully developed commercial\narea. This was taken into possession by the appellant during the\nrelevant financial year. Therefore, in the balance sheet of the\nappellant the land held as stock in trade has to be reduced from 4\nacres to 2 acres as 2 acres have been transferred to the builder/\ndeveloper. The book value

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

sections": [ "Sec 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Sec 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Sec 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Sec 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Sec 45(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Sec 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

5,00,461)\nD. Interest Income\nRs. 1,16,275/-\nTotal (A+B+C+D)\nRs. 68,81,000/-\n4.2 Further, the assessee against the taxable income at normal slab\nrate of Rs. 68,81,000/- claimed deduction under section 80G of the Act\nfor Rs. 68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they\ncannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn\ninterest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the\nbusiness of providing credit facilities to its members only. The society is not\ncarrying on any separate

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

5 of 8 forward short-term capital loss of Rs. 4,86,524/- and claiming deduction u/s 80 at Rs. 3,94,378/- returned the taxable income at 'nil' with carry forward business loss of Rs. 2,91,52,776/-. However, the lower authorities have adjusted the current year capital gains against the current year business loss and accordingly computed

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

5) to any relates to any of the relevant assessment other provision of this Act which has been years; amended or omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (iii) no deduction shall be allowed under (Amendment) Act, 1987 shall, section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80-I notwithstanding such amendment or or section 80-IA or 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

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69 of the Act is not applicable and consequently invoking the provision of section 115BBE of the Act is invalid in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to adjudicate all the grounds