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

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

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

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non- agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) Whether

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

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

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) Whether

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

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

56 (Ori) – SLP dismissed [2009] 310 ITR (St.) 0007; CIT vs. HCL Info System Ltd [2006] 282 ITR 263 (Del); Hyderabad Industries Ltd. vs. ITO [1991] 188 ITR 749 (Kar) 3.52 The CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2002 dated 28.06.2002 and Circular No. 4 of 2002 dated July 16 2002 ([2002] 256 ITR (St.) 22) states that

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) 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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) 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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) 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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) Whether

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) Whether

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) Whether

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

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

Section 48, the language employed is unambiguous. The intention is very clear. When a capital asset is transferred, in order to determine the capital gain from such transfer, what is to be seen is, out of full value of the consideration received or accruing, the cost of acquisition of the asset, the cost of improvement and any expenditure wholly

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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. DR. RAJAN PAI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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:

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

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

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) Whether

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

x) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use? (xi) Whether permission under Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of non-agriculturist, if so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non-agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? (xii) Whether

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

X 40.26) as unexplained investment within the meaning of Section 69 of I.T. Act, 1961 and adding it to the total income of the assessee". 5. It can be seen that identical amount in dollar is considered as unexplained investment for all the years and for all the year identical ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 64 conversion rate

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

X 40.26) as unexplained investment within the meaning of Section 69 of I.T. Act, 1961 and adding it to the total income of the assessee". 5. It can be seen that identical amount in dollar is considered as unexplained investment for all the years and for all the year identical ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 64 conversion rate

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

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

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

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