DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

8 of 16 term capital gains merely because such gains are taxable at a different rate. The rate of tax is governed by section

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

8 of 33 purpose of computing capital gains during this assessment proceedings. 3.3 The AO did not accept the contention of per unit cost of Rs.92.99 per sq.ft. because of the following reasons: - • Firstly, regarding the methodology of arriving at the cost of acquisition of Rs.2,69,50,000/- cannot be accepted as the actual cost of acquisition

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

8 of 33 purpose of computing capital gains during this assessment proceedings. 3.3 The AO did not accept the contention of per unit cost of Rs.92.99 per sq.ft. because of the following reasons: - • Firstly, regarding the methodology of arriving at the cost of acquisition of Rs.2,69,50,000/- cannot be accepted as the actual cost of acquisition

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

capital gains in the assessment order,\nthe learned A.O. has adopted the cost of acquisition at Rs.140 per\nsft. in the manner explained above. The findings of the learned\nCIT[A] is at para [8] at pages 34 to 38 of the appellate order.\n12.1 It was contended by the appellant that the guideline value\nadopted by the learned

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

capital gains in the assessment order,\nthe learned A.O. has adopted the cost of acquisition at Rs.140 per\nsft. in the manner explained above. The findings of the learned\nCIT[A] is at para [8] at pages 34 to 38 of the appellate order.\n12.1 It was contended by the appellant that the guideline value\nadopted by the learned

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

capital gains in the assessment order,\nthe learned A.O. has adopted the cost of acquisition at Rs.140 per\nsft. in the manner explained above. The findings of the learned\nCIT[A] is at para [8] at pages 34 to 38 of the appellate order.\n12.1 It was contended by the appellant that the guideline value\nadopted by the learned

POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 10 (38) of the act on sale of shares of Sunstar reality limited. Assessee submitted that assessee has offered short term capital gain on sale of those shares and offered tax in the computation of total income. The assessee has purchased the shares for a value of Page 3 of 8

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

8 from other sources against the business loss and carry forward the unabsorbed business loss of Rs. 46,04,890/-. The capital gains were separately offered to tax, and the assessee discharged the applicable tax liability of Rs. 3,58,312/-. However, the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), while processing the return under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

section was quoted correctly by the deductor.” 3 Ramesh Narayana Reddy (HUF) 3. At the outset the revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) on three counts. a. NAFC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 1,81,01,752/- on account of deemed rental income from the flats owned by assessee, these flats were allotted

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] of the Act had been violated under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 7. Without further prejudice, the learned CIT [A] ought to have appreciated that the NAV method for computation of capital gains was unwarranted under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 8

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

gains - Exemption under section 54 - Assessee purchased residential site and used portion of net sale consideration for construction of new house – Page 8 of 16 Assessee not appropriated the balance sale consideration either in investment in .in'iion of residential house or deposit into account notified by Central Govt. Assessee claimed exemption under section 54 for having invested the capital

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

capital gains in purchase/construction of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of section 54 of the Act. The relevant paragraph are reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience :- “11. A reading of the above Section would make it explicitly clear that proceeds of sale of the property is to be reinvested within a period of two years, which

PIONEER INDEPENDENT TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

8 statement showing the arrival of the book gain in respect of the redeemed units of the equity oriented mutual funds. The assessee had also furnished the computation of capital gain in accordance with the provision of section

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain as computed by the assessee amounting to Rs.36,64,791/-. The only dispute in this case is with regard to claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act amounting to Rs.36,64,791/-. The assessee along with his wife Mrs. Lovita Phukan had executed the agreement of purchase for a consideration Rs. 32,14,200/- and construction agreement

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gain computation. The ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 4 of 23 CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2007-08 by upholding the addition made towards undisclosed profits from sale of mutual funds. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had raised a legal contention that the AO has assumed jurisdiction u/s. 153C without

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gain computation. The ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 4 of 23 CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2007-08 by upholding the addition made towards undisclosed profits from sale of mutual funds. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had raised a legal contention that the AO has assumed jurisdiction u/s. 153C without

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gain computation. The ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 4 of 23 CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2007-08 by upholding the addition made towards undisclosed profits from sale of mutual funds. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had raised a legal contention that the AO has assumed jurisdiction u/s. 153C without

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gain computation. The ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 4 of 23 CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2007-08 by upholding the addition made towards undisclosed profits from sale of mutual funds. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had raised a legal contention that the AO has assumed jurisdiction u/s. 153C without