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

50C", "Section 50D", "Section 53A", "Section 55" ], "issues": "The primary issue was determining the correct assessment year for taxing capital gains

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

50C", "Section 53A", "Section 55" ], "issues": "The primary issue is the year of taxation for capital gains, specifically whether it falls

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

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

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

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

capital gain. Accordingly AO\nmade addition of Rs.92 lakhs and completed assessment under Section 144 of\nthe Act.\n3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before learned\nCIT(A). The learned CIT(A)after considering the detailed submission\nobserved that AO has rightly applied Section 50C

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

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Capital gains-Special\nprovision for computation of full value consideration (General)\n Assessment year 2013-14. Whether where assessee claims that\nvalue adopted or assessed or assessable by stamp valuation\nauthority exceeds fair market value of property and has raised\nspecific dispute before Assessing Officer that stamp valuation of\nproperty sold

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 are assessable for this year on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 50C

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

SOUTH KANARA AGRICULTURISTS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., ,MANGALURU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 50C of the Act was applied on capital gain computation. Thus, there is no infirmity in the orders. 10. We have

RANGANATH ASHOK MEHARWADE,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), HUBBALI

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 50C of the Act and proposed to treat the market value as the sale consideration for the Page 2 of 8 purpose of arriving the capital gains

MR. IBRAHIM SHARIFF,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Ibrahim Shariff, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.102, Royal Mantor, Ward – 4(3)(1), 14Th B Cross, Sarakki Signal, Bengaluru. J. P. Nagar 1St Phase, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Cmtps 2195 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. Kiran Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.10.2023

capital gains in the return of income filed. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, noticed that assessee had disclosed a sale consideration of Rs.90 lakhs on account of the sale of the said residential property whereas the SRO value of the impugned property was Rs.1,26,25,000/-. The assessee was directed to explain why section 50C

YOUSUFF HAMEEDA BANU,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 50C of the Act. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee’s argument that the principle of natural justice was not followed by the AO was without any merit. He further observed that as per directions of ITAT the matter was referred by the AO to the Valuation Officer. Thereafter multiple opportunities were given

SHRI. RAMPRAKASH H.V (HUF),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. Ramprakash H. V. (Huf), Vs. Acit, 312, 3Rd Main, 4Th Cross, Circle – 1(2)(2), Ombr Layout, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 043. Pan : Aaphr 3658 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. V. Gowthama, Ca Revenue By : Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023

capital gains as per provisions of the Income Tax Act. Therefore I hold that the AO has correctly made the addition of Rs.28,77,700/- by duly following the provisions of Section 50C

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

GOVINDAPPA JAYARAM DODDIAH (HUF),KODAGU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseen Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

Gain working holding them to be revenue in nature and in doing so, he failed to consider the fact that a. The interior work which was done had an enduring benefit b. The work was not done as per the requirement of the tenant c. The interior work done was capital in nature. 2) The Guidance value taken for calculating