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

1) Any profits or 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 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

1) Any profits or 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

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

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

1)Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as 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 Gains of Rs.2,87,28,750/- before claiming exemption\nunder Section 54B and 54F of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings\nthe assessee's representative was asked to substantiate the claim made for exemption\nunder section 54B and 54F of the Act. In reply the assessee stated in the year 2005\ni.e

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

1) of sixth Proviso, section 54, section 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

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

Capital Gains’. After satisfying himself on the above issue, the assessing officer issued another notice u/s. 142(1) dated 25.11.2016 seeking details of deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act. The assessing officer has requested for approval of the Pr. CIT for converting the case from limited to complete scrutiny. The approval was communicated to assessing officer on 29.11.2016. However

SYEDA MARIAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4), BENGALURU

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

capital gains were reinvested in agricultural land in satisfaction of conditions laid down in section 54B of the IT Act. 6 Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. AO erred in not issuing statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the IT Act” 5. At the time of hearing the learned A.R. of the assessee first argued on the legal

SHRI. THIMMAIAH SURESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

capital gain. The learned Assessing officer also erred in holding that the activity of the assessee clearly indicates that he had ventured into trade and consequently the benefit of exemption under section 54B claimed by the assessee is not available to him. Shri Thimmaiah Suresh, Bangalore Page 7 of 8 2.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that in present case

SHRI. MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Muniyappa Muniraju, No. 94/6, 8Th Main, The Income Tax New Oxford School Officer, Road, Ward – 4 (3)(4), Begur Main Road, Bangalore. Hongasandra, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan: Abbpm4961A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G. Satyanarayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr)

1,00,93,764/- was required to be made, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the very fact that the Respondent has not even considered the submissions made by the Appellant in respect of re- investment of capital gains in purchase of another agricultural land and merely confirmed that the re- investment made is not made within

SRI THIMMEGOWDA SHEKAR,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2), MYSORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

54B of the Act on the ground that the appellant had not filed ITR or furnished details before the AO with regard to the reinvestment made under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. 5. For the above other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays