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

53A of the Transfer of Property Act. As such, the contractual\nobligation of the developer was not met with in the assessment year 2005-2006.\nBeing so, the conditions laid down in section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the 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

53A of the Transfer of Property Act. As such, the contractual\nobligation of the developer was not met with in the assessment year 20052006.\nBeing so, the conditions laid down in section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to bring the capital gains

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

53A of the Transfer of Property Act. As such, the contractual\nobligation of the developer was not met with in the assessment year 2005-2006.\nBeing so, the conditions laid down in section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

capital gains tax arises in the\nsame year as that of the year of JDA and the ratio laid down\nin the above judicial decision is applicable in respect of the\ncapital asset as per section 2(47)(v) r.w.s 53A

MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains tax under Section 45 of the Act could not be levied for this Assessment Year.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "2(47)(v)", "53A

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

53A of the Transfer of\nProperty Act and sections 2(47), 45 and 48 of the Income\nTax Act and also took note of the provisions of section\n2(47)(vi) of the Act and vide para 27 held that the income\nfrom capital gains

SHRI. K V SATISH BABU [HUF],MYSURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2[1], MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gains. It is in order to plug this loophole that cl. (v) was inserted in section 2(47) to lay down that transfer would include any transaction involving allowing of possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, capital gains were not taxable in the year of JDA. The Tribunal also found that the sale of flats constituted capital gains, not business income, and allowed the deduction of costs of improvement and selling expenses.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gain in the year under consideration.\n\n16.2 We note that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act applies\nwhere the possession of capital assets is given to any person in lieu of\npart performance which is legally enforceable under section 53A

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act apply to an asset held as a Capital asset /investment & not to Stock In Trade. 27. It is submitted that from a reading & understanding of the JDA what has to be ascertained is the date on which PEPL starting exercising the POA to convey ownership of the undivided interest in the land

SRI DINESH DEVRAJ RANKA,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-8,, BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain by considering the guideline value of Rs.7,17,75,000 and the non-refundable deposit of Rs.1 crore as the full value of consideration. In this regard, it is important to peruse the terms of the JDA, the relevant clauses are extracted as under:- “3. LICENCE Upon execution and registration of this Agreement, the Owner hereby permits

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

53A of the act passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore is cad in law in as much as there was no material seized during the course of search to invoke the provisions of section 153A of the act and direct that, the disallowance of Rs.17,40,515/- made in 7-e assessment

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

53A of the act passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore is cad in law in as much as there was no material seized during the course of search to invoke the provisions of section 153A of the act and direct that, the disallowance of Rs.17,40,515/- made in 7-e assessment

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain. The deeming provision under Section 50\nC (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable\nproperty may have various attributes, charges. encumbrances,\nlimitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not\ntake into consideration the attributes of the property for determining\nthe fair market value in the condition, the property is offered

MR.B.KUNHI AHMED ,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2012-13

capital gain should have been computed in the Assessment Year 2012-13, the date of transfer of the property is 01.04.2011 which falls in the Assessment Year 2012-13. Our view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd., (supra) in which it has been held

BILESHIVALE MUDDANNA GOVARDHANA MURTHY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains in AY 2013-14. 5.9 However, after examining the reply and documents, the AO rejected the explanation of the assessee. The AO held that the issue is not whether a registered sale deed was executed, but whether there was a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. The AO opined that under section

BILESHIVALE MUDDANNA GOVARDHANA MURTHY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains in AY 2013-14. 5.9 However, after examining the reply and documents, the AO rejected the explanation of the assessee. The AO held that the issue is not whether a registered sale deed was executed, but whether there was a “transfer” within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. The AO opined that under section

RAMAIAH PUSHPAVATHI ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

gain on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Assessing Authority failed to appreciate that there is no transfer of capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act or section 53A

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

Section 69A of the Act.The addition is made out on basis of loose sheets of documents, which does not come under the ambit of ‘books of entry’ or as ‘evidence’ under the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: 57  CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410  Common Cause and others Vs. Union of India