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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee's case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee

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

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to bring the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005-\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee's case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain is governed by section 48, but\nthe rates of tax, insofar as we are concerned in the present appeal, are\ngoverned by sections 111A and 115AD.\n9.6 Further, the adjustment made by the CPC under section 143(1)\nhas the effect of re-working the computation in a manner contrary to the\nspecific claim made by the assessee

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

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

section 71(2) of the Act to setoff business losses against the income under the head capital gain or not, in this regard we find that the question has been answered by the coordinate bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in detailed manner in the favour of the assessee in the case of Ajay Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT reported in 99 taxmann.com

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

capital gains and income from other\nsources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or\nprofessions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of\nthe Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax\nunder this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

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 has invested in a residential house. Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions are not complete in all respects and as required under the law, that would not disentitle the assessee from the said benefit

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

gains of the undertaking; and that sub-section, as if such amendment or (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance omission had not been made.] under section 32, the written down value of Explanation. For the purposes of this any asset used for the purposes of the section, business of the undertaking shall be computed (i) free trade zone means

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

Section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, may please be pardoned and the Appellant be granted deduction of the whole of the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs 91,50,368/- U/s 54 of the Act. 3.3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in law and on facts in not considering

SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

section 2(47) of the act in support of his contention. 4.6 The Ld.AR heavily relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. CIT reported in (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that, in the case of acquiring a share, the date of acquisition

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

gain shown by the assessee. Here, we feel pertinent to refer the order of the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Indravadan Jain HUF in ITA No. 4861/Mum/2014. In the said case the assessee Indravadan Jain HUF . Page 10 of 19 purchased share of M/s Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd in the year

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

gain was calculated\nat Rs.26,06,434/-. Assessee filed detailed written submissions which was\nconsidered and not accepted and AO made addition under the LTCG of\nRs.26,06,434/-.\n3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the\nCIT(A). The learned CIT(A), observed that the assessee did not satisfy the condition of section\n54F

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

gain directly on the sale of flats in the respective\n assessment year (in A.Y. 2013-14 and in subsequent years).\n9.\nThe AO was of the view that on the date of JDA, the land\nproperty was transferred to builder/developer for construction which\namount to transfer of capital assets as per the provision of section

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains on the following grounds: a. That the payment encashed on 04.02.2015 towards sale consideration has been received by the appellant long after the date of agreement to sell i.e., 15.10.2014 and that the second proviso to section 50C of the Act will be applicable only if the payment is received on or before the agreement. b. That

KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BLR, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital maintained in savings bank accounts through which the credit operations of the assessee were carried out and, therefore, was attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members and assessable as business income. 11.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction under section 80P only to income assessed under

KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4),BLR, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital maintained in savings bank accounts through which the credit operations of the assessee were carried out and, therefore, was attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members and assessable as business income. 11.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction under section 80P only to income assessed under

KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OF TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BLR, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital maintained in savings bank accounts through which the credit operations of the assessee were carried out and, therefore, was attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members and assessable as business income. 11.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction under section 80P only to income assessed under