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

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

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

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

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 is applicable where the consideration is less than the guidance value and as such the same

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 was extended w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11 to the transaction which were executed through agreement to sell or power of attorney by inserting the word "assessable" alongwith words "the value so adopted or assessed". Hence, section 50C

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 (1

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 was extended w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11 to the transaction which were executed through agreement to sell or power of attorney by inserting the word "assessable" alongwith words "the value so adopted or assessed". Hence, 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 are attracted. As per section 50C, in such a case , the guidance value shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Section 50C of the Income

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

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

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

1) The assessee firm was not really dissolved on 30/09/1983 and it continued to exist till the date of sale which was evidenced by (a) The bank account and loan facility availed with Corporation bank which was closed only on 01/01/1988. (b) The sales tax assessment was made for the period subsequent to the said dissolution. (c) The insurance policies

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

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

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

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

1,96,35,600/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 16 3. The learned CIT (A) having held that the provisions of section 50C of the Act is not applicable to the case of the appellant and ought to have deleted the additions made by the learned assessing officer under section 50C

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

50C of the Act for year under consideration and computing capital gains by taking guidance value for year under consideration. 14. Ld.AR submitted that, transfer of property actually took place in the year 1993, when entire sale consideration was received by assessee. And in 2004, only registration of the deed took place, to complete the contractual shall obligation. He submitted

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

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

1) shall also be understood that in case of vacancy of the property in between from the initial letting out, it will be deemed as let out. Therefore, these provisions cannot be applied when there is a time lag between the acquisition of the property and letting out of the property and there is no allegation of deliberate unreasonable delay

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

50C to assess the appellant's Long Term Capital Gain more than the real income ignoring the fact that appellant title over the property was defective thereby under compelling situation to sell the property for a distress price. 8. The AO having assessed the Long term capital gain income higher than the admitted income ought to have given exemption under

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

50C to assess the appellant's Long Term Capital Gain more than the real income ignoring the fact that appellant title over the property was defective thereby under compelling situation to sell the property for a distress price. 8. The AO having assessed the Long term capital gain income higher than the admitted income ought to have given exemption under