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

gains arising from\nthe transfer of a capital asset effected in the\nprevious year shail, save as otherwise\nprovided in sections 54,54B

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

54B.(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital

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

gains arising from\nthe transfer of a capital asset effected in the\nprevious year shail, save as otherwise\nprovided in sections 54,54B

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

gains arising from\nthe transfer of a capital asset effected in the\nprevious year shail, save as otherwise\nprovided in sections 54,54B

SHIVAKUMAR KHENY (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

section 27 (iiib) of the Act, a person acquiring any rights through a lease for a period exceeding 12 years would be treated as the owner. 6. The above arguments did not find favour either with the AO or the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(A) in upholding the order of the AO, relied on the decision of the Mumbai ITAT

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

54B or section 54D or section 54EC or section 54F or section 54G or section 54GA or section 54GB were inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 which is effective from 01.04.2020, but the impugned case on hand is related to the AY 2018-19 & therefore the exemption u/s 54/54F can be claimed even without filling a return of income. Lastly

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B

SHRI. MALLAPPA SHARANAPPA UDNOOR,GULBARGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Sections 54B & 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of the investment made by the assessee without making the deposits in the capital gain

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save or otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

capital asset in\ncapital gain account scheme account. Hence, the amount spent on\nconstruction of house in Financial Year 2018-19 starting from January 2019\nwas not allowed under section 54F of the Act. The AO allowed index cost of\nacquisition of Rs.26,92,131/- and deduction under section 54B

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54. 54B

DCIT vs. SRI. P. SUBRAMANI,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 54B of the Act and recomputed the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) accordingly. The Assessing Officer while passing the order

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

capital gains was short computed to that extent. (ii) The assessee's claim for exemption under section 54B of Rs.10

SRI SUDHEER VALSALA SREEKUMARAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save or otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

capital gains. It was also stated that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 54B as he had purchased agricultural lands within the specified time limit mentioned section

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

capital gains. It was also stated that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 54B as he had purchased agricultural lands within the specified time limit mentioned section

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

capital gains. It was also stated that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 54B as he had purchased agricultural lands within the specified time limit mentioned section

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

capital gains. It was also stated that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 54B as he had purchased agricultural lands within the specified time limit mentioned section