GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains are fulfilled. 6. It should have been appreciated that only the unutilized amount has to be invested in a special account u/s 54(2) and when there is such utilization before the date of filing u/s 139, which includes 139(4), the requirement of deposit in special account does not arise. 7. The NFAC ought to have appreciated

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

6 of 16 8.1 The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 112 and a case law compilation having pages 174 to 205 and submitted that section 70(2) clearly permits set-off of short-term capital loss against income under the head “Capital gains” from any other capital asset. The provision does

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

6,14,36,386 FY 20-21 Less: Exemption claimed u/s. 54 restricted to 71,67,207 Rs.71,67,207/- Less: Exemption claimed u/s. 54EC 50,00,000 Net Capital Gains on sale of villas for FY 20-21 4,92,69,179 As the assessee had declared a capital gains of Rs.4,74,72,475 in the ITR filed

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

6,14,36,386 FY 20-21 Less: Exemption claimed u/s. 54 restricted to 71,67,207 Rs.71,67,207/- Less: Exemption claimed u/s. 54EC 50,00,000 Net Capital Gains on sale of villas for FY 20-21 4,92,69,179 As the assessee had declared a capital gains of Rs.4,74,72,475 in the ITR filed

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

3 of 34\nLandowners and Developers share in the Land in the Project as\nPer JDA\nParticulars\nCommercial\nResidential\nTotal Area\nLand Share\n(Sq. Ft)\n77,627\n14,630\n92,257\nDevelopers\nShare (Sq. Ft)\n77,627\n1,94,368\n1,94,368\nTotal in Sq.\nFt\n77,627\n2,08,998\n2,86,625\nLandowners and Developers share

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

gain arising out\nof the impugned property vide JDA dated 10.02.2011 to be taxed in\nthe assessment year 2018-19 only. Ordered accordingly.\n8.\nIn the result, both the appeals of the assessees in ITA\nNos.775 & 776/Bang/2024 are allowed.\n9. Now we will take up revenue's appeals in ITA Nos.954 &\n955/Bang/2024 for the AY 2017-18. The grounds which

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

gain arising out\nof the impugned property vide JDA dated 10.02.2011 to be taxed in\nthe assessment year 2018-19 only. Ordered accordingly.\n8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees in ITA\nNos.775 & 776/Bang/2024 are allowed.\n9. Now we will take up revenue's appeals in ITA Nos.954 &\n955/Bang/2024 for the AY 2017-18. The grounds

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

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

6. A perusal of the above Legislative history reveals that the assessee has always been given an option to set off his losses against the income from capital gains. However, as per the provisions of sub-section (3

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

3) has to be quashed, thus ordered accordingly. The\nground raised by the Assessee is accordingly allowed\".\n14. In this appeal, we are required to examine whether any substantial\nquestion of law arises for our consideration.\n15. Having regard to the findings returned by the Tribunal, which are\nfindings of fact, in our view, no substantial question of law arises

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

6, the ld. D.R. submitted as follows: Ground Nos. 1-3 & 5-6 4.1 The ld. CIT (DR) submitted as follows: (a) The order of ld. CIT(A) is factually and legally wrong in annulling the impugned assessment order by stating that the AO did not follow 1st Proviso of Section 143(3) as the A.O has also made

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

6 months from the date of purchase,\nwhich is liable for short term capital gain was not disclosed in the return filed\nfor Assessment Year 2013-14. To assess the income escaped assessment, the\ncase was reopened under section 148 of the Act after obtaining the\napproval/sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

section was quoted correctly by the deductor.” 3 Ramesh Narayana Reddy (HUF) 3. At the outset the revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) on three counts. a. NAFC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 1,81,01,752/- on account of deemed rental income from the flats owned by assessee, these flats were allotted

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

3. In order to claim exemption from capital gain the assessee decided to buy a site and construct a house under the provisions of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee purchased a site developed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) from the site allotee Shri. Ravikumar N and others at Arkavathi Layout, SiteNo

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,28,500 2007-08 29.7.2010 9,52,480 5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,28,500 2007-08 29.7.2010 9,52,480 5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,28,500 2007-08 29.7.2010 9,52,480 5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,28,500 2007-08 29.7.2010 9,52,480 5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,28,500 2007-08 29.7.2010 9,52,480 5. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- Asst. year Asst. year Asst. year Addition 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Bad debts written off 30,34,124 26,633 – Unexplained expenses 54,17,542 – – towards property improvement Undisclosed capital 1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6