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

gains in accordance with section 70 of the Act. Consequently, the computation of gross total income as returned by the assessee was in accordance with law. Once the gross total income is restored to the figure declared in the return, the deduction under section 80G of the Act must also be computed with reference to such income. The restriction applied

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

capital gains on JDA to tax. In the instant case, the cost which was allowed to be claimed by the assessee as per assessment order dated 10/02/20215was Rs.1,67,28,000/- for an area of 3,64,336 sq. ft. thus cost per sq ft. being Rs.45.91 sq. ft. The assessee is eligible to claim the per sq.ft. rate. • However

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

capital gains on JDA to tax. In the instant case, the cost which was allowed to be claimed by the assessee as per assessment order dated 10/02/20215was Rs.1,67,28,000/- for an area of 3,64,336 sq. ft. thus cost per sq ft. being Rs.45.91 sq. ft. The assessee is eligible to claim the per sq.ft. rate. • However

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

64,99,962\n43,25,290\n43,25,290\n17,49,200\n17,49,200\n40,000\n40,000\nITA Nos.775 & 954/Bang/2024\nSri Alagappa Muthiah (HUF), Bangalore\nITA Nos.776 & 955/Bang/2024\nSri Alagappa Annamalai (HUF), Bangalore\nPage 6 of 34\nSurvey charges\nEvaluation and speculation of JD\nJD Agreement\nDesign and inspection

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

64,99,962\n43,25,290\n43,25,290\n17,49,200\n17,49,200\n40,000\n40,000\nSurvey charges\nEvaluation and speculation of JD\nJD Agreement\nDesign and inspection\n11,251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long

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

64,99,962\nExpenditure in relation to transfer :\nBetterment fee - Residential uinits\nFees paid for change of land use\nPartition Deed\n43,25,290\n17,49,200\n40,000\n43,25,290\n17,49,200\n40,000\nSurvey charges\nEvaluation and speculation of JD\nJD Agreement\nDesign and inspection

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain is governed by section 48, but\nthe rates of tax, insofar as we are concerned in the present appeal, are\ngoverned by sections 111A and 115AD.\n9.6 Further, the adjustment made by the CPC under section 143(1)\nhas the effect of re-working the computation in a manner contrary to the\nspecific claim made by the assessee

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain as computed by the assessee amounting to Rs.36,64,791/-. The only dispute in this case is with regard to claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act amounting to Rs.36,64,791/-. The assessee along with his wife Mrs. Lovita Phukan had executed the agreement of purchase for a consideration Rs. 32,14,200/- and construction agreement

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\nwhich arises from the transfer of a capital asset, which\ncould be brought to tax under Section 45 read with Section\n48 of the Income Tax Act.\n13. The assessee in the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the\nappeal late before the Tribunal has also mentioned the\nfactual aspects and the legal dispute and has stated on oath

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

capital gain on the transfer of land making it clear that she was absolute owner of the land and during the scrutiny proceedings also, assessee did not object. The computation of subjected to applicability of section 50C of the Act which is held to be correct. Regarding the applicability of section 64

SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

section 2(47) of the act in support of his contention. 4.6 The Ld.AR heavily relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. CIT reported in (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that, in the case of acquiring a share, the date of acquisition

SHRI VANKADARI CHINNA REDDEPPA CHETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

section 143(3) proceedings on the income from the same property would be against the principal of estoppel and consistency which has been affirmed in the following rulings: a. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P.) Ltd. (151 Taxman 202) - refer page 1 of the CLC. b. NeoPoly Pack (P.) Ltd. (112 Taxman 363)-refer page 8 of the CLC. c. Man Mohan

RANGARAJ ROHINI,INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE 2(1) BANGALORE, KORMANGALA BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

capital gains to Rs. 1,11,26,626/- (from Rs. 64,86,375/- claimed by the assessee). As such, the excess indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 46,40,251/- was disallowed by the AO and added back to the returned income of the assessee. 5. The assessee filed objections before the ld. DRP, which upheld the AO's decision

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

capital creditors. The ld. Commissioner has noted that the exchange gain, which constitutes business income of the assessee, has been reduced while determining the total income in the computation of income. This adjustment, according to the ld. Commissioner, was not examined by the AO during the course of assessment. 8. On the basis of these observations, the Principal Commissioner

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

64,33,89,767/- on sales of Mutual Fund and Bonds units and other investments. The assessee had also Long Term Capital gain on sale of bonds and NCDs of Rs. 16,74,12,034/-after setting off of brought forward losses of earlier years. Further the assessee had disclosed loss from other sources

JYOTHY INDUSTRIES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

capital gains on the compulsory acquisition of the property by the BMRC.\nHowever, TDS credit for the same was not given for the reason that the said\nproperty was in the name of one of the partners of the assessee firm and tax\ndeducted at source on compensation paid was shown in the name of the said\npartner

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

Capital Gains’. After satisfying himself on the above issue, the assessing officer issued another notice u/s. 142(1) dated 25.11.2016 seeking details of deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act. The assessing officer has requested for approval of the Pr. CIT for converting the case from limited to complete scrutiny. The approval was communicated to assessing officer on 29.11.2016. However

MS. PUSPHA RAO PAMIDI,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahums. Pushpa Rao Pamidi Vs Dcit, Circle - 2(1) No. 156/1, C/O T. Viswanath & Co Bengaluru Sharada Mansion, 2Nd Floor R V Road, V V Puram Bengaluru 560004 Pan – Bhhpp1695K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sathish S., Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.07.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit We Find That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Cannot Be Attributed To Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay Of Four Days & Proceed To Dispose Of The Case On Merits.

64,24,257/-. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.09.2019. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee had received 3 Ms. Pushpa Rao Pamidi consideration of Rs.5,70,0,000/- in respect of sale of immovable property situated in JP Nagar, Bangalore

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

Section 64 of the said Act. In other words, it dealt with the surplus profit in a manner envisaged under the regulatory Statute that regulated, and thereby legitimized, its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Under those circumstances, if the assessee managed to earn some additional income by way of interest on the deposits made, it could only