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

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 50C, in case of transfer of a capital asset being land or building on both, the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty shall be taken as the full value of consideration for the purposes of computation of capital gains

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

capital gains under Section 48. The said provision reads thus: 50C Provision for full value of consideration in certain cases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

capital gains and in this regard relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v. CPC Logistics Ltd., ITA 653/2016 wherein it was held as under:- “14. Learned counsel for the Revenue argued that section 50C

MRS SHANTHAMMA MARGAMAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Shanthamma Margamappa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.203, Agara Village, Ward - 4(3)(4), H S R Layout Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 102. Pan : Atmpm 5572 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Lakshmi K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019

capital gains shall be computed on the basis of such consideration under section 48 of the Income-tax Act. The scope of section 50C

SHRI BASAVARAJ GURUNANJAIAH HIREMATH ,GULBARGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 & TPS , GULBARGA

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2016-17

50C of the Act does not operate to change the year of transfer as laid down in section 45(1) of the Act. 10. Section 45 of the Act is a charging section as far as capital gain

MR.SANTHOSH GOKUL REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

capital gains shall be computed on the basis of such consideration under section 48 of the Income-tax Act. The scope of section 50C

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital gains, when the sale value is less than the guidance value calculated by stamp valuation authority, provisions of section 50C

ITO, DAVANGERE vs. M/S MAGANAHALLI STEEL CORPORATION, DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 1989-90

capital gain by applying provisions of section 50C of the Act. Action of AO to hold that capital gain arises

DAYASHANKAR SANWAL JHUNJHUNWALA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2005 – 06

section 50C, long term capital gains was reworked at Rs.49,36,647/- based on the guidance value in the year

SMT.SUNITHA S.BATHIJA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assesee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

section 50C of the Act and instead he directed the learned assessing officer to adopt the valuation of the properties made by the DVO vis-á-vis the value of the shares transferred for the purpose of computation of Long Term Capital Gains

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

capital gain on the transfer of land making it clear that she was absolute owner of the land and during the scrutiny proceedings also, assessee did not object. The computation of subjected to applicability of section 50C

SHRI GUNDMI VENKATARAMANA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16

Capital Gain has failed to demonstrate, the appellant in reality has received the consideration equivalent to guidance value which is over and above the actual sale consideration stated in sale deed. 7. The AO ought to have applied the provisions of Section 50C

SMT UMA VENKAT ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16

Capital Gain has failed to demonstrate, the appellant in reality has received the consideration equivalent to guidance value which is over and above the actual sale consideration stated in sale deed. 7. The AO ought to have applied the provisions of Section 50C

V.S. CHANDRA SHEKAR vs. ACIT,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gains’ and not under the head ‘profit and gains from business or profession? V.S. Chandrashekhar, Bangalore Page 2 of 6 iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that provisions of Section 50C

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

section 50C amounting to Rs.20,26,000/- related to sale of two flats F1 and F2 at Bangalore. b. on long term capital gain

MR.G.R.CHENNAKESHAVA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

capital gain at Rs.4,51,127/-. In this return, the sale consideration under section 50C of the Act was taken

GANGADHARAYYA G NARENDRAMATH ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

section 50C of the IT Act, 1961. 7. Without prejudice, the Id. AO and the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that as entire capital gains