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

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

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 34,4A,, 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

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

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

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

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 of the assessee in respect of sale of property although the title in property is defective. He submitted that the AO should have obtained the valuation report from the DVO as per section 50C (2

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 of the assessee in respect of sale of property although the title in property is defective. He submitted that the AO should have obtained the valuation report from the DVO as per section 50C (2

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

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 of the Act and instead he directed the learned assessing officer to adopt the valuation

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

2 different persons and that Memorandum of Agreement of Transfer and Assignment dated 17/03/1993 has no relevance for the final sale deed registered on 04/10/2004. He thus upheld the view of Ld.AO regarding computing capital gains as per section 50C

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

capital gains' and consequently section 50C was also not applicable. 8. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, addition of Rs. 23,59,000under section 50C is incorrect, bad in law and liable to be deleted. Reduction of fair market value as on 1.4.1981 9. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

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 on sale of industrial land at Halkundi Village, Bellary and was added back amount of Rs.97,77,387/-. c. on unexplained cash deposit amounting to Rs. 40 Lakhs Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before