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

1,04,72,000/1,09,924) which should be allowed while computing the capital gain. The methodology of reducing the exemption of STCG of Rs.2,50,000/- as calculated by the assessee is not correct as in our view it will not reduce the actual cost of the acquisition incurred for the property. 9.1 Further, with regard toadoption

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

capital gains shall be computed by deducting the\nfollowing amounts from the full value of consideration\nreceived or accrued as a result of the transfer of the\ncapital asset. [1] expenditure incurred wholly or\nexclusively in connection with such transfer [2] cost of\nacquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement\nthereto. Special provision for full value

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

capital gains shall be computed by deducting the\nfollowing amounts from the full value of consideration\nreceived or accrued as a result of the transfer of the\ncapital asset. [1] expenditure incurred wholly or\nexclusively in connection with such transfer [2] cost of\nacquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement\nthereto. Special provision for full value

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

capital gains shall be computed by deducting the\nfollowing amounts from the full value of consideration\nreceived or accrued as a result of the transfer of the\ncapital asset. [1] expenditure incurred wholly or\nexclusively in connection with such transfer [2] cost of\nacquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement\nthereto. Special provision for full value

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

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

1) and Section 269UA(d) and Explanation to Section 155(5A). Thus, Section 50C applies only in case of a transferor of land which in the instant case is M/S Namaste Exports and not the assessee who was only a consenting party and not a transferor / co-owner of the property. Undoubtedly, the assessee had certain rights under the agreement

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 of the Act which is held to be correct. Regarding the applicability of section 64(1

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain. The deeming provision under Section 50\nC (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable\nproperty may have various attributes, charges. encumbrances,\nlimitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not\ntake into consideration the attributes of the property for determining\nthe fair market value in the condition, the property is offered

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

50C(1) of the Act. (ii) That the addition of Rs.20,26,000/- made under the head, "Capital Gains", restricting the loss is totally unjustified. LTCG on sale of land & building by the Firm. 3. The learned AO as well as the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated: (i) That the land 86 building belonged to the Firm, M/s. Hothur

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

capital gains by adopting deemed\nsale consideration at Rs. 26,89,99,677/-. However, the assessee has\nfailed to do so. It has also been seen that the assessee has furnished\nincorrect details regarding sale consideration of one property sold and\ndeclared in the ITR as per the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax\nAct

SMT. SARITHA JAIN,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-1(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 51/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Saritha Jain, The Income Tax Flat No. 3, 28/1, Officer Gowri Kunj, (International Palace Cross Road, Taxation), Vasanth Nagar, Ward – 1(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aedpj9216L Appellant Respondent

capital gains are assessable for this year on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act and bringing a sum of Rs. 1

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Capital gains and Income from other sources. Sec. 28 of the Act lays down various categories of income that shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". The income of the Assessee in the present case would fall within Sec. 28(i) of the Act viz., "the profits and gains

MR. IBRAHIM SHARIFF,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Ibrahim Shariff, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.102, Royal Mantor, Ward – 4(3)(1), 14Th B Cross, Sarakki Signal, Bengaluru. J. P. Nagar 1St Phase, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Cmtps 2195 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. Kiran Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.10.2023

capital gain. The assessing officer took sale consideration at Rs. 1,26,25,000/- by invoking section 50C of the I.T. Act. The AO failed

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of an asset (other than a capital asset), being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer

SOUTH KANARA AGRICULTURISTS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., ,MANGALURU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 50C of the Act was applied on capital gain computation. Thus, there is no infirmity in the orders. 10. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. In this case the order of the learned CIT – A is passed not on the merits of the addition but for non- prosecution

RANGANATH ASHOK MEHARWADE,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), HUBBALI

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 50C of the Act and proposed to treat the market value as the sale consideration for the Page 2 of 8 purpose of arriving the capital gains. The AO also issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

Section 69A of the Act.The addition is made out on basis of loose sheets of documents, which does not come under the ambit of ‘books of entry’ or as ‘evidence’ under the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: 57  CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410  Common Cause and others Vs. Union of India

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

Capital gains and Income from other sources. Sec. 28 of the Act\nlays down various categories of income that shall be chargeable to income-tax\nunder the head \"Profits and gains of business or profession\". The income of the\nAssessee in the present case would fall within Sec. 28(i) of the Act viz., \"the\nprofits and gains