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

section 2(47) of the I.T. Act r.w.s. 53A of the T.P. Act, 1982. The orders of the lower authorities on this account is therefore to be upheld. Page 36 of 40 70. In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that it is squarely covered by the ratio of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

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

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

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

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

74) of the Act and that if that land is used for agricultural purposes till the date of sale, despite the fact that it' is converted to non-agricultural use are agricultural lands and not capital assets under section 2(14) of the Act. Whether BIAPPA can be treated as a Municipality and consequently the issue falls within the purview

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

74) of the Act and that if that land is used for agricultural purposes till the date of sale, despite the fact that it' is converted to non-agricultural use are agricultural lands and not capital assets under section 2(14) of the Act. Whether BIAPPA can be treated as a Municipality and consequently the issue falls within the purview

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

74,536/- interest under sections 234B and 234D of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant expressly urges that the period of levy of interest is not in accordance with sections

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

section 54 of the Act. Deduction u/s 54F of the Act is available on sale of any capital asset other than residential house. The assessee’s request for allowing claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act was denied by the A.O. for the reason that the assessee owned more than one residential house other than the new asset

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

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it had been held that, in a joint development agreement, the relevant date for attracting capital gain is the date on which possession was handed over to the concerned developer, where the complete control over the immovable property to such agreement, which is transferred to such developer, then the date

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

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits ". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life

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

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

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

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

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

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

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

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

M/S MHM HOLDINGS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Mhm Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Range - 12 Bengaluru No. 52, Bassappa Road Shantinagar Bengaluru 560027 Pan – Aabcm6614L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Parthasarathi, Adv. Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M.

capital gain of Rs.97,74,55,161/- under the provisions of Section 50B of the Act as per the detailed

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 Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

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 Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

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

ESSAE TERAOKA LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

74,810. Originally the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) vide order dt.26.11.2007 by accepting the returned income of the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received communication from the Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation) (OSD), Bangalore disclosing the fact that capital gains