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

capital gains on JDA to tax. In the instant case, the cost which was allowed to be claimed by the assessee as per assessment order dated 10/02/20215was Rs.1,67,28,000/- for an area of 3,64,336 sq. ft. thus cost per sq ft. being Rs.45.91 sq. ft. The assessee is eligible to claim the per sq.ft. rate. • However

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

3. Grounds No.3 to 10 are inter-related on the issue whether the CIT(Appeals) was right in holding that amendment to section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] which was introduced w.e.f. AY 2007-08 was applicable retrospectively for AY 2014-15 when the language used in the proviso does not indicate that it was inserted

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

50C Provision for full value of consideration in certain cases (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of 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 (hereafter in this section referred

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

50C is applicable where the consideration is less than the guidance value and as such the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Similarly, section 50D is also not applicable which has come into & CO 2/Bang/2022 Page 23 of 27 force with effect from 1-4-2013; thus, cost of construction would be the appropriate mode

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

3] I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. [4] The fundamental purpose of introducing section 50C was to counter suppression of sale consideration on sale of immovable properties, and this section was introduced in the light of widespread belief that sale transactions

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

capital gain by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. 4. The assessee has filed application for admission of the additional evidence of the copy of Cash Book statement for the period 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017 and the following documents: Description Sl. No. 1 The Copy of the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2015- 16 along with

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

3] I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. [4] The fundamental purpose of introducing section 50C was to counter suppression of sale consideration on sale of immovable properties, and this section was introduced in the light of widespread belief that sale transactions

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

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 in relation

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

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

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in appreciating that the asset in this case was held for business purpose and depreciation had been claimed and Capital Gains is to be worked out as per Sec.50(2). “ 4. The above issues were already decided by the ITAT in ITA No.2096/Bang/1992 by order dated 20.7.1995. On a reference by the ITAT

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

section 50C of the Act as on the date of registration of sale. 9. Assessee also challenged the year of taxability of capital gains, that the transfer of capital asset never took place in the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration and therefore taxing of capital gains during relevant year under consideration is bad in law. This preposition

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

section 50C with guidance value adopted by stamp valuation authorities. Assessee in response submitted that the said properties did not attract stamp duty as assessee only sold shares in the company M/s Esteem Arcade Pvt.Ltd. 3. Ld. AO, accordingly worked out capital gain

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

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the provisions of section 50C of the Act is mandatory and thereby upholding the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of a sum of Rs. 55,39,181/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed

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

Section 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. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that addition

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

Section 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. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that addition

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

3) read with section 147 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Addition under section 50C is bad in law 6. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making addition of Rs. 23,59,000 under section 50C of the IT Act, 1961. 7. Without prejudice

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

gain or capital loss on the basis of value mentioned in sale V.S. Chandrashekhar, Bangalore Page 6 of 6 deed and not on the basis of valuation as per section 50C of the Act. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th June, 2024 (Prakash Chand Yadav) Accountant Member

MR.G.R.CHENNAKESHAVA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

50C of the Act was taken as Rs.29,50,500/-. The other two statements of income filed earlier in response to notice under section 142(1) was that the amount of commission paid has been increased from Rs.57,600/- to Rs.59,000/- and development charges, civil works and compound wall, ACC roof shed, water deposit, cost of site expenses, after

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

3) of the Act and an addition was made with a total income of the assessee in three heads, which are as follows:- a. for violation of 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