M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

56,921/-, whereas, the assessee had earned short-term capital gains of Rs. 8,80,902/-. The assessee in the return of income did not set off the business loss against the short-term capital gain. However, after adjusting the capital gains of the year against the brought . Page 5 of 8 forward short-term capital loss

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

56(2)(x)(b) of the Act states as follows:\nProvided also that where the stump duty value of immovable\nproperty is disputed by the assessee on grounds mentioned in sub-\nsection (2) of section the Assessing Officer mar refer the valuation\nof such properly to a Valuation Officer. And the provisions of\nsection 50C and sub-section

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

sections": [ "139(5)", "143(1)", "147", "148", "144", "50C", "2(47)", "45", "48", "53A", "56(2)(x)" ], "issues": "Whether a sale transaction, subsequently cancelled and where no consideration was passed or possession transferred, can be considered a 'transfer' for capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 148 of the\nAct to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for\nthat Assessment Year. Therefore the case was rightly reopened by the AO.\nThe learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed appeal of the assessee.\n6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the Order\nof learned

PIONEER INDEPENDENT TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

section 55(2)(ac) of the Act had observed that the AO had failed to call for any details on the issue and accepted the computation of long term capital gains without making necessary enquiries or verifying the issue as required by law, had set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to revise the assessment order dated 26/09/2022

SHANTHA ALIAS SHANTHAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

56,42,000/- only. The impugned capital gain was added to the total\nincome of the assessee.\n10. The AO further found that during the year under dispute the\nassessee has sold 15 flats “SJR Plaza City Project” and 14 Flats in “Mantri\nPremiro Projects” on which received consideration of Rs. 7,53,77,252/-\nand

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

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

gain was calculated\nat Rs.26,06,434/-. Assessee filed detailed written submissions which was\nconsidered and not accepted and AO made addition under the LTCG of\nRs.26,06,434/-.\n3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the\nCIT(A). The learned CIT(A), observed that the assessee did not satisfy the condition of section\n54F

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains arising on transfer of such asset. c) Even when section 50C did not have a provision similar to the one contained in the proviso to section 56

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

56,12,500/-, the shed became a rentable condition, then given on rent from the Financial Year 2010-11 to 2013-14, after that, the shed become vacant and not yielding any rent. Hence the Assessee firm sold the property in the Financial Year 2017-18 for a consideration of Rs.69,39,10,800/-. The circumstantial evidence is that after

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

56,45,949 and passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act dt. 29.12.2022. 5. The notice under section 263 of the Act, for the assessment year 2021–22, has been issued by ld. PCIT, Bengaluru–2, vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/REV/F/2024-25/104737420731 dated 26.02.2025. The notice proposes to revise the assessment order passed under section

UDAYA SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

56 of the Act. 9.5 The above finding of the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the revenue for disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on account of interest income earned from deposit or investment of surplus fund by the cooperative societies carrying the business of banking

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

MR. FIROZ AHAMMAD MUJAWAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Firoz Ahammad, Vs. Ito, Acharya Iti No 15, 1St Cross 1St Stage Peenya Ward – 3(3)(4), Industrial Estate, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058, Karnataka. Pan : Agqpm 8839 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh G, Ca Revenue By : Shri.Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

56,000/- and claimed that the assessee has received Rs.30 lakhs as sale consideration and it has been offered as capital gain. However, this explanation of the assessee was not accepted observing that the assessee is unable to substantiate the source of cash deposit. Therefore, AO treated it as income under section

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

56,00,000/-, resulting in a long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,51,74,000/-. The assessee reinvested this amount in a new residential unit and claimed exemption under Section

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 56(2)(viib) read with rule 11UA, this Tribunal in Flutura Business Solutions (P) Ltd v ITO (2020) 117 taxmann.com 567 (Bang-Trib) and other similar cases, has held that the valuation under DCF method can be based only on estimated future projections and actual figures available subsequently cannot be replaced. Applying the same, the estimated cash flows considered

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 56(2)(viib) read with rule 11UA, this Tribunal in Flutura Business Solutions (P) Ltd v ITO (2020) 117 taxmann.com 567 (Bang-Trib) and other similar cases, has held that the valuation under DCF method can be based only on estimated future projections and actual figures available subsequently cannot be replaced. Applying the same, the estimated cash flows considered

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

gain of Rs.28,65,882/-in the financial year 2014-15 in the scrip of M/s GCM Securities Limited, M/s Unno Industries, M/s Pearl Electric Limited, M/s Mahaveer Advanced Rem and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the act. During the course of search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Act, it was found that

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

56,46,839/- under the head “income from business and profession” on the turnover of Rs.175,50,27,988/- which worked out at net profit rate of 10.01% of the turnover for the assessment year 2015-16 and according to him income chargeable under head from business to be computed at 13.42% of the turnover. Accordingly, the assessee agreeing with