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

4 of 17 …….. Sec.2(42B) of the Act defines Short term capital gain as follows:- “(42B) "short-term capital gain" means capital gain arising from the transfer of a short-term capital asset;” 10. We have to look at the definition of the term “Short term capital gain” because what is not short term capital gain is Long term capital

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

4 of 35 Rs.6,69,12,000/-, 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

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

capital gains of Rs.59,73,467/- claimed under section 54F of IT Act. 3. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding disallowance of exemption under section 54F on the basis that the villa was registered on 21.02.2015 i.e. prior to transfer of original asset i.e. Page 2 of 16 13.11.2015 when section 54F does not bar construction within

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

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

capital gain detail of the computation filed by the assessee on 19.03.2016 was also accepted and MAT computation made by the AO. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel was agitated as reopening made by the AO is beyond the due date of 4 years since the case was scrutinized 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

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

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

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

4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one Page 16 of 31 year before 1two

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

73 payments made by the assessee have been actually received by the apparent sellers. Hence, the estimate made by the two appellate authorities does not warrant interference. Even otherwise, whether the estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum, can never be an issue of law. In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

73 ITR(SC) 702 4. Mc Dowell & company Ltd. Vs CIT 154 ITR(SC) 148 5. Sunil Sidharth Bai Vs CIT 156 ITR(SC) 509 6. Sumathi Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR(SC) 801 19. In all the above cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Income Tax authorities are entitled to lift the veil covering sham

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

73 ITR(SC) 702 4. Mc Dowell & company Ltd. Vs CIT 154 ITR(SC) 148 5. Sunil Sidharth Bai Vs CIT 156 ITR(SC) 509 6. Sumathi Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR(SC) 801 19. In all the above cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Income Tax authorities are entitled to lift the veil covering sham

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

73 ITR(SC) 702 4. Mc Dowell & company Ltd. Vs CIT 154 ITR(SC) 148 5. Sunil Sidharth Bai Vs CIT 156 ITR(SC) 509 6. Sumathi Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR(SC) 801 19. In all the above cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Income Tax authorities are entitled to lift the veil covering sham

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

73 ITR(SC) 702 4. Mc Dowell & company Ltd. Vs CIT 154 ITR(SC) 148 5. Sunil Sidharth Bai Vs CIT 156 ITR(SC) 509 6. Sumathi Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR(SC) 801 19. In all the above cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Income Tax authorities are entitled to lift the veil covering sham