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

capital gains as computed and upheld is liable to be deleted. Page 4 of 40 16. On the facts the learned Commissioner (A)ought to have accepted the explanation and submissions made by the appellant and refrained from upholding the impugned additions. 17. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner (A)erred in not giving any finding with regard to levy

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

gains in accordance with section 70 of the Act. Consequently, the computation of gross total income as returned by the assessee was in accordance with law. Once the gross total income is restored to the figure declared in the return, the deduction under section 80G of the Act must also be computed with reference to such income. The restriction applied

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

section 45(4) of the Act are: - 1. Theres should be dissolution of the firm or other wise and 2. Distribution of the assets. In the opinion of the ld. CIT(A), as per the provisions of 45(4) of the Act, when the capital asset of the firm are distributed on dissolution or otherwise, the firm needs

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

section 45(4) of the Act are: - 1. Theres should be dissolution of the firm or other wise and 2. Distribution of the assets. In the opinion of the ld. CIT(A), as per the provisions of 45(4) of the Act, when the capital asset of the firm are distributed on dissolution or otherwise, the firm needs

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

section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 26. The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G.Patel (supra) is a case where the deed of reconstitution specifically referred to release of rights of the outgoing partners in the assets of the partnership and further

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

SRI MAHENDRASINGH RAMSINGH JADAV,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

91,500 and this flat, according to the A.O., was purchased by the assessee vide a registered sale agreement only on 06.03.2009 for a consideration of Rs.29,08,950. According to the A.O., the assessee’s declaration of income on sale of impugned flat as a long term capital gains (LTCG) and claiming deduction u/s 54 of the I.T.Act

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 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

91,52,776/-. However, the lower authorities have adjusted the current year capital gains against the current year business loss and accordingly computed the income of the assessee. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the provisions of 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 Accounts Scheme as mandated under IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 4 of 16 section 54(2) of the Act. 5 The construction has not been completed within three years period i.e. within 31/07/2018. 3.3 The AO accordingly assessed the LTCG at Rs. 26,91

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains and there is no tangible information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. The reassessment proceedings is on a change of opinion on the same facts without there being any new tangible evidence or information which is not permitted under law. Thus the notice issued u/s 148 are bad in law, without jurisdiction, barred by law and requires

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains and there is no tangible information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. The reassessment proceedings is on a change of opinion on the same facts without there being any new tangible evidence or information which is not permitted under law. Thus the notice issued u/s 148 are bad in law, without jurisdiction, barred by law and requires

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains and there is no tangible information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. The reassessment proceedings is on a change of opinion on the same facts without there being any new tangible evidence or information which is not permitted under law. Thus the notice issued u/s 148 are bad in law, without jurisdiction, barred by law and requires

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains and there is no tangible information or evidence warranting reopening of the assessment. The reassessment proceedings is on a change of opinion on the same facts without there being any new tangible evidence or information which is not permitted under law. Thus the notice issued u/s 148 are bad in law, without jurisdiction, barred by law and requires

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section\n143(3) of the Act. For the sake of convenience copy of the reasons recorded\nwhich is placed at Paper Book Page Nos.72 to 73 is reproduced below:\nPage 18 of 21\nITA No.1181/Bang/2025\nAnnexure to notice u/s.142(1).\nYour case has been reopened for the following reasons.\n1. The long term capital gain on sale of land

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 computation given below: - Provisional purchase price in respect of capacitors 116,00,00,000 division Less Adjustment in purchase price as given in Pg. 1,74,16,651 No. 15 of the agreement Final purchase price in respect of capacitors

SMT.VANI SHREE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 54F, as claimed by the assessee. The Ld.AO thus rejected the stand of the assessee, that capital gain is taxable in the year 2012- 13. 20. The dispute, that arises for consideration, before us relates to the year of assessability of capital gains, arising on the property, which was the subject matter of development agreement, i.e.,  whether, is assessable

TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

section 45 of the Act. 10. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that Sobha City held a piece of land and that the assessee had a share of 30% of such land. It was concluded that the assessee relinquished its share in such land in favour of other partners of the firm. Therefore, it was a case

SRI. LAXMIDAS BAPUDAS DARBAR,BAGALKOT vs. ITO, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain, especially in the light of provisions of section 48 of the Act? 24. We have heard the ld. counsel for the assessee and the ld. DR on the above issues that arise for consideration. The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated submissions that were made before