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

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

capital gains is excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be reduced substantially. 13. The learned Commissioner (A) erred in levying the interest u/s.234B and 234D of the Act. 14. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 2. At the time

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

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

50C of the Act, where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed 110% of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48 of the Act, be deemed

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

50C of the Act, where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed 110% of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48 of the Act, be deemed

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

2) the expression "full value of the consideration" is used in contradistinction with "fair market value of the capital asset" and there is an express power granted to the ITO to "take the fair market value of the capital asset transferred" as "the full value of the consideration" in specified circumstances. (Emphasis supplied) Reliance was placed on the decision

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

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

2(47)(v) of the Act. One of the contentions of the Ld AR is that the plan approval for development of the property came only in the subsequent assessment year. According to section 53A whereby the transferee has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part

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

2(47) quoted above. But the aforesaid definition was made before Section 50C was introduced to the Income Tax Act. Page 8 of 15 After section 50C was introduced in the year 2003, the value of the land or building or both sold or otherwise transferred has to be the value assessed by the authority of the State Government

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

2 of 15 2015-16 to examine “sale consideration of property is less than the value as per stamp authority (as per return) and sale of property as reported in Form 26QB”. The assessment was concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.11.2017; wherein the assessee’s 1/4th share in short term capital gain (STCG); arising

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

Gains, it is seen that the\nassessee has declared long term capital loss as under:-\nSale consideration Received\nRs. 99,88,300/-\nSale consideration as per Section 50C\nRs. 99,88,300/-\nIndexed cost of acquisition\nRs. 21,55,658/-\nIndexed cost of improvement\nRs. 83,46,545/-\nLong Term Capital Loss\nRs. 5,13,883/-\nThe copies of sale

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

2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. DR. RAJAN PAI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. George George Ki.T.A No.1290/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. Dr. Rajan Pai, Block No.1B, Jakkur Plantation Village, Yelahanka Main Road, Bengaluru .. Respondent Pan : Agbpp2795G Assessee By : Shri. Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit -Iii Heard On : 12.04.2016 Pronounced On : 29.04.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

capital gains arising out of sale of bonus shares would be charged to tax, taking the whole consideration, ignoring the cost attributed to it by operation of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. In any case, as per the Ld. AR, decision of Mumbai bench in the case of ITA.1290/Bang/2015 Page - 7 Sudhir Menon HUF (supra) was directly

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. The Income Tax Simplification Committee (Easwar Committee) has I.T.A. No.1237/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 in its first report, pointed out that this provision does not provide any relief where the seller has entered into an agreement to sell the property much before the actual date of transfer of the immovable property and the sale consideration is fixed

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

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

2) of the Act. 6.7 As discussed in above paras, I have gone through facts submitted by appellant and AO and it is seen that as claimed by appellant there cannot be a dissolution on 30.09.1983 by taking away jointly held property by firm by only male partners and allowing Lady partner to continue firm’s business, same will

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

Gains, it is seen that the\nassessee has declared long term capital loss as under:-\nSale consideration Received\nRs. 99,88,300/-\nSale consideration as per Section 50C\nRs. 99,88,300/-\nIndexed cost of acquisition\nRs. 21,55,658/-\nIndexed cost of improvement\nRs. 83,46,545/-\nLong Term Capital Loss\nRs. 5,13,883/-\nThe copies of sale

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