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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Briefly stated, the fact of the case shows that assessee is an individual who filed her return of income on 30.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs.33,71,480/- comprising of income from capital gains, income from house property and income from other sources. This return was revised on 05.08.2013 at total income of Rs.39,70,830/-. 3. Subsequently

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 which requires to be reduced to the returned income on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought to have referred to the valuation officer in terms of section 50C(2

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

gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" has to be computed and it lays down that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides that the Central Government may notify

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

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

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

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

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, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset