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

gain which arises from the alleged transfer of capital\nasset could be brought to tax under section 45 r.w.s.48 of\nthe Act. We hold so. The grounds of appeal raised by\nassessee are thus, allowed.\n27. This brings us to another aspect of the matter as to whether\nthe provisions of Section 2(47)(v) are attracted in the\ninstant

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

55A of the Act when the cost of construction claimed by the Appellant was not acceptable. Page 3 of 8 C. CONSEQUENTIAL GROUNDS: 10. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 11. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

SHRI. VADAGUR NARAYANAPPA PREMACHANDRA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital gains is eligible for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act for the reason that the new asset has been constructed after a period of 3 years from the date of transfer of the land under the JDA. 4. As against the order of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld CIT(A) and contended that

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

VINAY KONCHADY SHENOY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

55A of the I.T. Act and proceeding to compute the Long Term Capital Gains adopting alleged guidance value as deemed consideration as the Appellant has clearly mentioned that the he has obtained the Valuation report dated 20.11.2020 from the Registered Valuer. 4. The Appellant objects the levy Interest u/s. 234A B and C consequent to above addition. 5. The Appellant

PRITHVIRAJ LEKKAD MALLIKARJUN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

55A of the Act to arrive at the Fair Market Value as on 01.04.2001 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned authorities below ought to have 2611416 allowed the transfer expenses amounting to Rs.84,86,361/- incurred by the appellant towards sale of property under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. a) The appellant

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

capital gains. Once the AO had referred the matter to the Valuation Officer, the onus was on the assessee to timely submit the details before him. However, the assessee not to discharge this onus so as to prevent the Valuation Officer from sending the report. Since the failure to get the valuation report was due to failure on part

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

gain earned. He submits that the sum of Rs. 1,81,03,143/– is the undisputed sale consideration received by the assessee which was deposited in the non-resident external account with the federal bank received from the buyer Dr Gopalan. Out of that sum the sum of Rs 1,60,00,000/- was deposited for opening non-resident external