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 ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 11 of 33 of Rs.17,96,704/- (Rs.4,92,69,179 – 4,74,72,475) was added back to the income of the assessee and brought to tax. 3.6 With regard to the Notional rent on residential property owned

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

69,390\n63,48,87,727 [A] 88,06,78776\n157729.5\n11,82,97,088\n33,13,02,430 [B] 32,64,99,962\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

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

69,390\n63,48,87,727 [A] 88,06,78776\n157729.5\n11,82,97,088\n33,13,02,430 [B] 32,64,99,962\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

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

69,390\n[A]\n63,48,87,727 [A]\n88,06,78776\nIndexed Cost of Acquisition\nLand handed over as UDS for balance\nResidential Area [sq.ft]\n1600049\nFMV of land as on 01.04.2001/sft\n750 12,00,36,750\nIndexed cost of Acquistion :\nBase Year Index\n100\nSale Year Index\n276\n[B]\n157729.5

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

69,00,001/-). 50. Sec.45 of the Act lays down that profits and gains arising out of transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “capital gains” and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Section

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

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the assessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

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

capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

69,00,000 (refer page 8 of the sale deed dated 24.05.2012) and declared entire gains arising out of the sale as long term capital gains. This residential unit originally consisted of ground and first floor. The first floor was purchased by the assessee and his wife on 27.02.1989 and they constructed second floor during the financial year

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

capital gains account scheme. The authorities below alleges that, sum of Rs.65 Lacs invested in construction of residential property cannot be allowed to assessee, since property could not be constructed within period of 3 years. There is no finding by authorities below that, delay in construction was attributable to assessee but was beyond the control of assessee since the construction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

69,12,000/-, 50% being the assessee's share comes to Rs.3,34,56,000/-. The capital gains assessable in the capacity of HUF comes to Rs.3,34,56,000/-. 5. On going through the return of income filed by the assessee it is found that the assessee has not offered the above capital gains tax. As per the provisions

ANANDAKRISHNANA VAIDYANATHAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarishri Anandakrishnan Vaidyanathan, No.306, Vishal Nest, Amruthahalli, Bangalore-560 092 ….Appellant Pan Aakpv 3185H Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri K.V.Narasimhan, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit (D.R.)

69,070 comprising of income under profession, capital gains and other sources after claiming exemption from the capital gains arising on account of sale of shares of Rs.1 Crore under Section

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

section 153C are bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- a. CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (84 taxmann.com 290); b. CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (62 taxmann.com 391) (Del); c. CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108) (Kar); d. CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (73 taxmann.com 149)(Kar); e. Pr. CIT v. Allied Perfumers

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

section 153C are bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- a. CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (84 taxmann.com 290); b. CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (62 taxmann.com 391) (Del); c. CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108) (Kar); d. CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (73 taxmann.com 149)(Kar); e. Pr. CIT v. Allied Perfumers

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

section 153C are bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- a. CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (84 taxmann.com 290); b. CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (62 taxmann.com 391) (Del); c. CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108) (Kar); d. CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (73 taxmann.com 149)(Kar); e. Pr. CIT v. Allied Perfumers

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

section 153C are bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- a. CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (84 taxmann.com 290); b. CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (62 taxmann.com 391) (Del); c. CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108) (Kar); d. CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (73 taxmann.com 149)(Kar); e. Pr. CIT v. Allied Perfumers

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

gain tax are as under:- (a) The lands transferred were non-agricultural lands because from the description of schedule of properties that the lands are converted from agricultural to non-agricultural for residential purpose. Therefore, the nature of the lands is non- agricultural when the transfer took place. (b) In view of section 80 of Karnataka Land Reforms

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

gain tax are as under:- (a) The lands transferred were non-agricultural lands because from the description of schedule of properties that the lands are converted from agricultural to non-agricultural for residential purpose. Therefore, the nature of the lands is non- agricultural when the transfer took place. (b) In view of section 80 of Karnataka Land Reforms

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

section 2(47)(v) of the Act and computed the short term capital gain arising out of JDA. Further, during the survey, the assessee was asked to produce details of bills/vouchers and documentary proof for the developmental expenditure charged to the P&L account and consequently statement u/s 133A of the Act from the assessee with the declaration