Search: capital gains

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

viii) Whether the land was situated in a developed area; whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (ix) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities; (x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 & TPS , BAGALKOT vs. SHRI PRABHAYYA BASAYYA SARAGANACHANI , BAGALKOT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 858/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. Prabhayya Basayya Saragachari, At. Muchakhandi Tq & Ward 1 & Tps, Dist. – Bagalkot – 587 102. Bagalkot. Pan : Doips 6443 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Kambiyavar, Advocate

Section 10(37)Section 14Section 145Section 145ASection 2Section 56Section 57

capital asset and cannot be taxed under section 56(2)(viii) relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC) which was applicable on the issue prior to A.Y. 2010-11 before the amendment to section 56 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (3) The leanred CIT(Appeals

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

viii) Whether the land was situated in a developed area; whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (ix) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities; (x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR

Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

viii) That, in relation to offshore services, section 9(1)(vii)(c) required two conditions to be met : to be taxable in India the services which were the source of the income sought to be taxed had to be rendered in India as well as utilized in India. In this case, both these conditions were not satisfied simultaneously, thereby excluding

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3, SHIVAMOGGA

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri A.K.Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Lakshmamma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Purdal Road, Ward-3, Gadikoppa, Shivamogga-577 201 Shivamogga-577 205 Pan No: Akkpl 6281 A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : K.R.Narayana, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.3.2019 Of The Cit(Appeals), Davangere, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Facts & Circumstances Under Which This Appeal Arise For 2. Consideration Are That The Assessee Owned Agricultural Lands Measuring 6.8 Acres In Malligenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk Which Was Compulsorily Acquired By The Special Land Acquisition Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Slao”], Under The Provisions Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Vide Notification Dated 22.9.2000. Aggrieved By The Award As Originally Passed Awarding Compensation For The Land Acquired By The Govt., Page 2 Of 12

For Appellant: Shri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.R.Narayana, JCIT (DR)

Section 10(37)Section 2Section 23Section 23(2)Section 28Section 56Section 57

Capital gain” arising from the transfer of agricultural land, shall be exempted, where : 1. Such land is situate in any area referred to in, item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2 2. Such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), DHARWAD vs. SHRI VINAYAK HARI PALLED , HUBBALLI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Sree Nandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: None

Section 10(37)Section 14Section 2Section 28Section 56Section 57

Capital gain” arising from the transfer of agricultural land, shall be exempted, where : 1. Such land is situate in any area referred to in, item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2 2. Such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

viii) Whether the land was situated in a developed area; whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 35 of 79 lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (ix) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities; (x) Whether

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

viii) Whether the land was situated in a developed area; whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 35 of 79 lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (ix) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities; (x) Whether

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

viii) Whether the land was situated in a developed area; whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 35 of 79 lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (ix) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities; (x) Whether

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

viii) Whether the land was situated in a developed area; whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 35 of 79 lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (ix) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities; (x) Whether

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

viii) Whether the land was situated in a developed area; whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (ix) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities; ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 37 of 82 (x) Whether there

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

viii) Whether the land was situated in a developed area; whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (ix) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities; ITA Nos.2222 & 2223/Bang/2016 Page 37 of 82 (x) Whether there

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. DR. RAJAN PAI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1290/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. George George Ki.T.A No.1290/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2(2), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. Dr. Rajan Pai, Block No.1B, Jakkur Plantation Village, Yelahanka Main Road, Bengaluru .. Respondent Pan : Agbpp2795G Assessee By : Shri. Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit -Iii Heard On : 12.04.2016 Pronounced On : 29.04.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT -III

Section 115RSection 115R(2)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

gains arising out of sale of bonus shares would be charged to tax, taking the whole consideration, ignoring the cost attributed to it by operation of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. In any case, as per the Ld. AR, decision of Mumbai bench in the case of ITA.1290/Bang/2015 Page - 7 Sudhir Menon HUF (supra) was directly

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SHRI. M.R. ANANDARAM (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1169/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)

viii) Whether the land was situated in a developed area; whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (ix) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities; (x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions

SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 199Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Capital Gains of Rs.2,02,95,269 being ¼ th share of compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and has claimed exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Return of Income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, subsequently the Notice under Section 143(2

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

viii) Whether the land was situated in a developed area; whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (ix) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities; (x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

viii) Whether the land was situated in a developed area; whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural? (ix) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities; (x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234BSection 69

section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234BSection 69

section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying