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

Section 48, the language employed is unambiguous. The intention is very clear. When a capital asset is transferred, in order to determine the capital gain from such transfer, what is to be seen is, out of full value of the consideration received or accruing, the cost of acquisition of the asset, the cost of improvement and any expenditure wholly

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

73,200/- after claiming various expenses like cost of acquisition, cost of improvement etc. before claiming deduction u/s.54F of Rs.8,28,940/- and arrived at the net capita' gains of Rs.90,44,260/- as against the actual capital Page 5 of 35 gains of Rs.3,34,56,000/- as worked out above. At the time of filing the return

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

capital loss on sale of shares as claimed by the Assessee and hold that the transaction of sale of shares deserves to be ignored and no loss can be determined nor can any short term gain be taxed. Thus the grounds relating to short term loss/gain on sale of shares are treated as partly allowed. 54. Ground No.23

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

sections for different assessment years on different capital gains arisen on sale of different capital assets. He thus denied the exemption of Rs.59,73

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

73 taxmann.com 78)(Chennai Trib); e. Smt. M. Vijaya v. DCIT (49 taxmann.com 26)(Hyd Trib); f. ITO v. Chandar HUF (12 taxmann.com 305)(Chennai Trib); g. CIT v. Dhable, Bodbe Parose, Kale, Lute and Choudhari (202 ITR 98)(Bom). What is sold by Appellant is agricultural and hence gains are outside the purview of capital gains tax 14. Without

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

73 taxmann.com 78)(Chennai Trib); e. Smt. M. Vijaya v. DCIT (49 taxmann.com 26)(Hyd Trib); f. ITO v. Chandar HUF (12 taxmann.com 305)(Chennai Trib); g. CIT v. Dhable, Bodbe Parose, Kale, Lute and Choudhari (202 ITR 98)(Bom). What is sold by Appellant is agricultural and hence gains are outside the purview of capital gains tax 14. Without

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

73 taxmann.com 78)(Chennai Trib); e. Smt. M. Vijaya v. DCIT (49 taxmann.com 26)(Hyd Trib); f. ITO v. Chandar HUF (12 taxmann.com 305)(Chennai Trib); g. CIT v. Dhable, Bodbe Parose, Kale, Lute and Choudhari (202 ITR 98)(Bom). What is sold by Appellant is agricultural and hence gains are outside the purview of capital gains tax 14. Without

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

73 taxmann.com 78)(Chennai Trib); e. Smt. M. Vijaya v. DCIT (49 taxmann.com 26)(Hyd Trib); f. ITO v. Chandar HUF (12 taxmann.com 305)(Chennai Trib); g. CIT v. Dhable, Bodbe Parose, Kale, Lute and Choudhari (202 ITR 98)(Bom). What is sold by Appellant is agricultural and hence gains are outside the purview of capital gains tax 14. Without

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

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 asessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

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

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 asessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

capital gains taxation, it is exempt under sec.47(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. The case of the Revenue is that a company cannot make a gift and also seen if it is treated as a gift, it is not eligible for exemption provided under sec.47(iii), as correct provision of law applies to the case of the assessee

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 45 of 78 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

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 45 of 78 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

SHRI.PARSWANATH PADMARAJAIAH JAIN ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A No.453/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri. Parswanath Padmarajaiah Jain, 9Th Main, Koramangala 3Rd Block, Bengaluru 560 034 .. Appellant Pan : Aehpp3827M V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ganesh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. Cit Heard On : 13.12.2018 Pronounced On : 21.12.2018

73,85,491/- and claimed long-term capital gains. In this case though the land was purchased on 14.05.2007 and the capital gains arose to the assessee on account of sale of the land on 15.02.2010, but the long-term capital gains was restricted to the capital gains as the cost of construction was more than the capital gains arising

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

73 and untenable and the land is always held as a capital asset right from inception. 5.2 The appellant had received the Land at Binny pet (not purchased) from a Partner as capital contribution on capital account and in accordance with the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act the said Land was accounted as Capital Asset

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

73 and untenable and the land is always held as a capital asset right from inception. 5.2 The appellant had received the Land at Binny pet (not purchased) from a Partner as capital contribution on capital account and in accordance with the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act the said Land was accounted as Capital Asset

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

capital gains arising out of the transfer of the said property; which is 5,73,75,000. His share of it, is about k3,48,75,000. x. The assessee contends that since the deemed transfer of schedule A property has taken place on 08.04.2013, the revision of guideline values effected on 12.08.2013 by the State Government resulted in guideline

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 which arises from\nthe transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to\ntax under Section 45 read with Section 48 of the Income\nTax 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