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

Section 53A of TOPA. The\nITAT held that the transfer in the present case took place only after\nexecution of the POA dated 17 August 2012 in favour of the\ndeveloper granting the authority to convey, sell, transfer the\nproperty. Therefore, the capital gain, if any was leviable only in AY\n2013-14 and not during AY 2012-13 when

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

section\n143(3) of the Act. For the sake of convenience copy of the reasons recorded\nwhich is placed at Paper Book Page Nos.72 to 73 is reproduced below:\nPage 18 of 21\nITA No.1181/Bang/2025\nAnnexure to notice u/s.142(1).\nYour case has been reopened for the following reasons.\n1. The long term capital gain

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain of Rs. 1,53,73,386/- under section 10(38) of the Act, including the capital gain of Rs. 10,86,720/- on account

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

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

73 or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74[or sub-section (3) of section 74A]. Return of income. 139. (1) to (2)*** (3) If any person who [***] has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or under the head "Capital

SHANKAR RAJASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

73 - 0.S 26439/2019  11th ACMM - CC 54730/15, CC 50625/2018  Karnataka High Court - RFA 1096/2016 Due to these unresolved legal matters, the sale of the properties has not occurred, and any declaration of capital gains is premature and incorrect. In light of the above facts, I respectfully request that the additions made under 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

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

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

capital gain of Rs.\n55,49,07,175/- (Rs.75,73,97,892 – Rs.20,24,90,717/-) was offered\nto tax.\n4.1 Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny\nand accordingly notice under section

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

capital gain of Rs.\n55,49,07,175/- (Rs.75,73,97,892 – Rs.20,24,90,717/-) was offered\nto tax.\n4.1 Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny\nand accordingly notice under section

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

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

Capital Gains" only after the expiry of 3 years where the appellant had not constructed / purchased any residential house as per the conditions of Section 54F of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change or delete any of the grounds of appeal

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that

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

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

73,499/- for which the Assessing Officer has agreed in the assessment order. (b) In the absence of substantiation by the assessee firm towards the cost of the improvement (as the order u/s 144) by the assessee firm. The Assessing Officer denied the index cost of improvement amounting to Rs.7,37,19,400/- which is against the fact

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE vs. NADAKRISHNA THIMMAIAH, BANGALORE

gains taxation. It is\nonly T Nadakrishna, who is the rightful purchaser and owner of the\nagricultural land. Assuming but not admitting that the ld. AO's\naction of treating the income substantively in the Assessee's hand is\nappropriate, he submitted that on merits, the addition is bad in law.\nTransaction not taxable since the Assessee is neither

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

gains taxation. It is\nonly T Nadakrishna, who is the rightful purchaser and owner of the\nPage 13 of 41\nITA Nos.130/Bang/2023\nM/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore\nITA No.653/Bang/2023\nNadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore\nagricultural land. Assuming but not admitting that the ld. AO's\naction of treating the income substantively in the Assessee's hand is\nappropriate, he submitted that

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

73 of assessee’s paper book which shows that the learned assessing officer has not taken approval to travel beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. 5.4 He submitted that the provisions of section 69 and 69A are invoked. Section 69 of the Act is invoked for unexplained investment and section 69A of the Act is invoked for unexplained money

DANDU JOJAPPA FRANCIS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains is Rs. 1,73,74,800/-. 3. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld.CIT(A) and raised several grounds on merits. Subsequently, by way of additional grounds, the assessee disputed the sanction obtained by the AO u/s. 151 of the Act as not a valid sanction since the authority prescribed u/s. 151(ii) is the Principal