ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

7,82,394 ----------------- Assessed Income 2,66,18,966 ----------------- & CO 86/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 24 4. In the return of income filed, among others, the assessee had returned gross Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,65,57,000 on sale of shares. This gain arose on account of sale of shares of Musigma Inc., consideration for which was received

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

section (1), shall be deemed to Page 7 of 16 be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" relating to long-term capital assets of the previous year in which such residential house is purchased or constructed. (3

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

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

7. Section 45 of the Act provides that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income tax under the head "Capital gains". Capital Gains is of two types. Short-term capital gains and long term capital gains. Depending upon the nature of capital gains the liability

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

7. On the facts the learned Commissioner (A) ought to have allowed the cost of purchase of steel claimed by the appellant while computing the capital gains. 8. The learned Commissioner (Al ought to have appreciated that the amount of Rs.3,36,29,479/- being the surplus on account of sale of improvements having offered under the head "Income from

SMT.ANUPAMA NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

capital gain as per the provision of section 54/54F of the Act. 7. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st Mar., 2017. (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dt.31.03.2017. *Reddy gp 9 Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3

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

3,89,646/- was raised. 5. Against the intimation order, the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act which came to be rejected by the CPC vide order dated 14th March 2021. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. 6.1 Before

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

7 of 45 11. The CIT(A) held that the consideration of Rs. 53.10 crores, after reducing the cost of the asset, which was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 6.79 crores, was chargeable to tax as short-term capital gain in terms of section 50 and not as long-term capital gain as held by the Assessing Officer

SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

Section 2(47) and the liability to Capital Gains exists. When the partnership firm paid lump-sum amount to the retiring partner, it is paid in consideration of her retirement in Page 3 of 23 the partnership and assignment of her interest to other partners, the transaction would amount to transfer u/s 2(47) of the IT Act. Referring

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

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/12/2022. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru. 5. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: - I) With regard to rate per sq. ft towards

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

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/12/2022. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/12/2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru. 5. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: - I) With regard to rate per sq. ft towards

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

3 of 17 as 31.08.2014 and the date of sale being less than 36 months, the AO construed the capital gain on sale of property as a short term capital gain. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act by investing the capital gain in acquisition of another property. Since the gain in question was construed

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

section 71 of the Act), returned a total taxable Income of Rs. 2,59,15,640. 10. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the sale of the leasehold rights over the land that was sold gave rise to long term capital gain (LTCG). That the sale of building was taxable as short term capital gain (STCG

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. C. NARASIMHAIAH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

7 .The learned CIT(A) erred in not reversing the determination of Short Term.,Capital Gains in the case of the respondent by the learned AA which was based on the statement given by Sri. V.Doddappa, the co-owner who admitted for payment of short terms capital gains. 8. The authorities blow ought to have considered the case

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

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax arising out of such sales within the meaning of the definition of the term “capital asset”. Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain and claimed that it was agricultural land though it was converted into non-agricultural residential purpose, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains arising therefrom to tax under the Act. Satisfaction of condition for availing exemption under section 47(iv) of the Act ITA Nos. 1783 and 1784/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 10 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in denying the benefit of section 47(iv) of the Act on the ground that the entire share capital

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains arising therefrom to tax under the Act. Satisfaction of condition for availing exemption under section 47(iv) of the Act ITA Nos. 1783 and 1784/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 10 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in denying the benefit of section 47(iv) of the Act on the ground that the entire share capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

7. Thus, the observation of CIT(A)-2, Panaji for deleting the Long Term Capital Gain arising on sale of land is contrary to the facts available on record. The CIT(A) omitted to consider the fact that the appellant had failed to furnish evidences in support of claims made in the computation of LTCG as mentioned supra. Thus

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU vs. M/S. BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

Section 50B(1) of the Income-tax Act also clearly states that any profits or gains arising from the slump sale effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income-tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer