ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

8. The provisions of section 54F of the Act read as follows:- “54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

capital gain account scheme. In addition to the above he further submitted that section 54F of the Act is beneficial provision and the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court has decided this issue in the case of CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar (supra). He has filed written synopsis. 8

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

8-10 supra. The dispute is in narrow compass, whether interest paid on housing loan for acquiring a capital asset can be added towards cost of acquisition u/s 48 while computing capital gains chargeable to income-tax arising from sale of capital asset. The interest on housing loan is allowed as deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act , subject

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 2(47) to prevent avoidance of capital gains liability by recourse to transfer of rights in the manner referred to above. A person holding the Power of Attorney is authorized the powers of owner, including that of making construction though the legal ownership in such Page 8

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 48(2) of the Act, according to the assessee. Accordingly, the capital gains for transfer of property to M/s. Gopalan Enterprises is required to be computed by giving a reasonable expenditure towards fencing and also by reducing Rs.3,30,29,479 from capital gains as computed by the AO. 21. The ld. DR submitted that the original agreement dated

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

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

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

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

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

SMT.ANUPAMA NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 54 & 54F it is clear that once the amount has been deposited in the capital gain account and subsequently the assessee could not utilize the said amount for purchase of new asset then the said amount shall be charged to capital gain as income for the previous year in which the period of 8

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

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

section 71 of the Act), returned a total taxable Income of Rs. 2,59,15,640. 10. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the sale of the leasehold rights over the land that was sold gave rise to long term capital gain (LTCG). That the sale of building was taxable as short term capital gain (STCG

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

capital gain also. Thus, slump sale was held to be not chargeable to tax prior to insertion of Section 50B. In the present case, we are concerned with AY 97-98 prior to insertion of Sec.50-B of the Act. 7. The claim of the Assessee regarding non-taxability of consideration received on sale of transportation business /undertaking as well

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

SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

8. To appreciate the rival contentions we have to refer to certain provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 45(1) of the Act brings to tax any capital gain

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

section 2 (14) of the Act. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made to the income of the Page 22 of 66 assessee under the head 'Capital Gains' on sale of the said agricultural lands in question, in the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09. 8

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains arising therefrom to tax under the Act. Satisfaction of condition for availing exemption under section 47(iv) of the Act ITA Nos. 1783 and 1784/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 10 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in denying the benefit of section 47(iv) of the Act on the ground that the entire share capital of the Appellant

M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains arising therefrom to tax under the Act. Satisfaction of condition for availing exemption under section 47(iv) of the Act ITA Nos. 1783 and 1784/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 10 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in denying the benefit of section 47(iv) of the Act on the ground that the entire share capital of the Appellant