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 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

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.\nNow we will take up revenue's appeals in ITA Nos.954 &\n955/Bang/2024 for the AY 2017-18. The grounds

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

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

capital gains. However, as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 71, the assessee is not allowed to set off capital

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 47(xiii) proviso (a) & (c) of the Act. Subsequently the assessee filed their detailed objections and demonstrated before the AO that none of the provisos were violated by them while transferring the firm into a company and therefore, claimed that the addition made under the head long term capital gains is not warranted. For the purpose of clarity

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

capital gains under Section 45(1)\nof the Act in this assessment year.\n9. We also note that during reassessment proceedings, the\nassessee had submitted photographs showing that the\nproject was still under construction, which substantiates\nthat the transaction was not complete. Therefore, we hold\nthat the addition of Rs.1,71

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

Capital Gain tax on the basis of\ntransfer of land arises in the same year of transfer and not\nassessable in the subsequent years. Hence the income\ncomputed for the A.Y 2017-18 amounting to Rs.\n393,84,71,155/- is not justifiable and the same is liable to\nbe deleted since the relevant asset being undivided prtion of\nthe

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

71,90,45,278/- 4. Disallowances u/s 14A Rs. 7,91,031/- 6. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who vide order dated 29-12-2016, allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee. . Page 3 of 9 7. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the ld. CIT-A, the Revenue preferred an appeal before

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

capital gain\n\nRs.\n5,00,000/-\nRs.2,71,30,392/-\nRs.1,65,20,020/-\nRs.2,41,15,265/-\n\n22.\nThe above computed LTCG was offered by the assessee to tax in\nthe year under consideration.\n23.\nThe assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that for\nmaking sale of flats, he incurred commission expenses and legal expense\nof Rs.5

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

71,480/- comprising of income from capital gains, income from house property and income from other sources. This return was revised on 05.08.2013 at total income of Rs.39,70,830/-. 3. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

capital gain\n\nRs.\n5,00,000/-\nRs.2,71,30,392/-\nRs.1,65,20,020/-\nRs.2,41,15,265/-\n\n22. The above computed LTCG was offered by the assessee to tax in\nthe year under consideration.\n\n23. The assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that for\nmaking sale of flats, he incurred commission expenses and legal expense

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

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

71,36,593/-. The returned income included Vankadari Chinna Reddappa Chetty, Bangalore Page 2 of 7 income from long term capital gains ('LTCG') of Rs. 2,90,26,991/- consisting of LTCG from sale of residential flats obtained under Joint development agreement ('JDA') of Rs. 2,74,43,009/- and LTCG from sale of agricultural plots

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

capital gains and income from other\nsources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or\nprofessions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of\nthe Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax\nunder this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

MR. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

71,02,910/- declared in the return of income. The difference is Rs. 6,65,530/- which is arising under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". The reason for the difference is that the assessee has reduced a sum of Rs. 6,57,138/- while arriving at the income under the head "Profits and gains of business

M/S. GOKULDAS EXPORTS,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Gokaldas Exports Vs. Dcit, Circle - 11(2) (Presently Gokaldas Exports Ltd.) Bengaluru No. 25, 2Nd Cross, 3Rd Main Industrial Suburb, Yashwanthpur Bengaluru 560022 Pan – Aaacg8239J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bangalore Dated 31.03.2004 For Ay 1995-06. This Is The Third Round Of Proceedings Before The Tribunal In Pursuant Of The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In Ita No. 635 Of 2016 Order Dated 19.07.2022 Which Is Placed On Record On Pages 164 To 176 Of The Paper Book.

capital gain is computable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Without prejudice the authorities below were not justified in assessing the firm after it has ceased to exist on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The value adopted by the Assessing officer is not correct on the facts and circumstances of the case