SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

Capital Gains’ (STCG) on account of sale of agricultural land as against Rs.1,35,000/- declared by the assessee; and the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.17,11,707/- after allowing deduction of Rs.1 lakh under section 80C

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

Capital Gains’ (STCG) on account of sale of agricultural land as against Rs.1,35,000/- declared by the assessee; and the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.17,11,707/- after allowing deduction of Rs.1 lakh under section 80C

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

Capital Gains’ (STCG) on account of sale of agricultural land as against Rs.1,35,000/- declared by the assessee; and the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.17,11,707/- after allowing deduction of Rs.1 lakh under section 80C

SMT JANAKI AMMA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed and the other appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

Capital Gains’ (STCG) on account of sale of agricultural land as against Rs.1,35,000/- declared by the assessee; and the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.17,11,707/- after allowing deduction of Rs.1 lakh under section 80C

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

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

capital gains’ of Rs.10,45,29,911 and after claiming exemption of Rs.10,38,54,572 under section 54B of the Act, income thereunder was declared at Rs.6,75,169. Out of the amount of Rs.10,38,54,572 claimed as exempt under section 54B of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.3

MR. JAGANATH RAMACHANDRA JAMADAR ,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BIDAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

capital gains for the AY 2017-18 which is not in terms of section 45(2) of the Act. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO had grossly erred in considering the cost of acquisition at Rs 3,00,000 and not Rs 3,35,000 as incurred by me towards

SUDHABAI C. JAIN,HUBLI vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanita No.295/Bang/2016 Ay 2007-08 Ita No.296 /Bang/2016 Ay 2008-09 Smt. Sudhabai C.Jain No. 62, 3Rd Cross, Arihant Nagar Keshwapur, Hubli . Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2) Hubli . Respondent

80C Maximum 100000.00 ___________ Taxable Income 339901.00 *Short term capital loss on sale of shares (4365) 3. The Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares and short term Capital Gain on sale of shares was in respect of shares purchased through a broker latter demated and then sold through a broker on a ITA No.295, 296, 297 & 298/B/16 3 stock

SYEDA BIBI SADIQA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

Section 54 as determined by the learned CIT Appeal needs to be corrected as under: The total sale proceeds of the apartments is 3,86,00,000 less: Cost of the new asset being 19,53,60,000. The deduction is restricted to the Sale Proceeds i.e 3,86,00,000. 3. The Learned CIT (A) had a misplaced idea

SENTHIL KUMAR THANGAVELU,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan Kassessment Year : 2021-22

capital gains, dividend and interest. Assessee was resident in India and filed return of income on 27.01.2022 with a total income of Rs.2,20,07,180/- and claimed foreign tax credit (FTC) of Rs.1,52,708/- under sections 90/91 of the Act. Due date for filing return of income was 31.12.2021. However, the return was filed on 27.01.2022 claiming deduction

M. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2007-08 Shri M. Sathyanarayana Setty, No. 105, 3Rd Main Road, I Cross, The Income Tax Vhbcs Layout, Officer, Vs. Mahalakshmipuram, Ward – 6 (2) (2), Bangalore – 560 086. Bangalore. Pan: Atlps1459B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Revenue By Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2019

80C of the Act, is eligible for deduction as claimed for and same is to be granted to the appellant. 2. The learned Assessing officer has erred in taxing the Long Term Capital Gain @ normal slab rate instead of @ 20% as prescribed u/s 112 of the Act. The action of Assessing officer being erroneous both on facts