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

94,60,000.00 Area or 1,83,500 sq. ft whichever is higher at the rate of 760 per sq. ft Less: COA for 61.5% of undivided share of land 1,67,28,000.00 Capital Gains 12,27,32,000.00 Share of assessee- 15% 1,84,09,800.00 3.2 After the completion of the JDA, the assessee was handed over

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

94,368\nTotal in Sq.\nFt\n77,627\n2,08,998\n2,86,625\nLandowners and Developers share in the Constructed Area in\nthe Project as Per JDA\nParticulars\nShare in\nCommercial\nPortion\n2,33,818\nShare in\nResidential\nPortion\n33,443\nTotal Share\n2,67,261\nLandowner\nDeveloper\nTotal

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

94,368\n2,86,625\nLandowners and Developers share in the Constructed Area in\nthe Project as Per JDA\nParticulars\nShare in\nCommercial\nPortion\nShare in\nResidential\nPortion\nTotal Share\nLandowner\n2,33,818\n33,443\n2,67,261\nDeveloper\n5,11,492\n5,11,492\nTotal\n2,33,818\n5,44,935\n7,78,753\n3.1 There

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

7 of 45 11. The CIT(A) held that the consideration of Rs. 53.10 crores, after reducing the cost of the asset, which was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 6.79 crores, was chargeable to tax as short-term capital gain in terms of section 50 and not as long-term capital gain as held by the Assessing Officer

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

94,368\nTotal in Sq.\nFt\n77,627\n2,08,998\n2,86,625\nLandowners and Developers share in the Constructed Area in\nthe Project as Per JDA\nParticulars\nShare in\nCommercial\nPortion\n2,33,818\nShare in\nResidential\nPortion\n33,443\nTotal Share\n2,67,261\nLandowner\nDeveloper\nTotal

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

7(1)(1),\nBangalore.\nDivya Dinesh,\nNo.467, 36th Cross, 19th Main,\n4th T Block, Jayanagar,\nBangalore - 560 041.\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nPAN - ALGPD 2314 R\nAssessee by\nShri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate\nRevenue by\nShri Balusamy N, JCIT\nDate of hearing\n04.02.2026\nDate of Pronouncement\n.02.2026\nORDER\nPER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:\nThis set of 2 appeal, filed at the instance

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

section (1) i.e., within a period of two year after the date of transfer of capital asset which gives rise to capital gain, then the amount not so utilised shall be charged u/s. 45 as income of the previous year in which period of two years from the date of transfer of the original asset expires. In that case

PRADEEP KAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Geoergeassessment Year : 2006-07

7,50,000. Therefore, the amount received by them for giving up the right of specific performance i.e., to give up their right in a capital asset constitutes capital gains. However, they are entitled to deductions as per s. 48, both regarding the investment made as well as the expenditure incurred and only after such deduction the amount arrived

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

7. Aug. 28, 2009 Cheque No.282991 in favour of 10,00,000:00 B.S.Prabhakar drawn on the Karnataka Bank Ltd., Jayanagar, 4th Block Branch, Bangalore 8, Oct. 9, 2009 Cheque No.423296 in favour of 8,00,000:00 B.S.Prabhakar drawn on the Sough Indian Bank Ltd., Jayanagar, 4th Block Branch, Bangalore 9. Oct. 23, 2009 Cheque No.423297 in favour

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

7. In the GPA executed by Narasimhaiah and Chikkaputtaiah, they stated that they are the owners of the land admeasuring 3 acres each and further stated that they had applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose and the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-division, vide his order dt.15.5.95 had granted their request

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

7. In the GPA executed by Narasimhaiah and Chikkaputtaiah, they stated that they are the owners of the land admeasuring 3 acres each and further stated that they had applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose and the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-division, vide his order dt.15.5.95 had granted their request

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

7. In the GPA executed by Narasimhaiah and Chikkaputtaiah, they stated that they are the owners of the land admeasuring 3 acres each and further stated that they had applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose and the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-division, vide his order dt.15.5.95 had granted their request

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

7. In the GPA executed by Narasimhaiah and Chikkaputtaiah, they stated that they are the owners of the land admeasuring 3 acres each and further stated that they had applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose and the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-division, vide his order dt.15.5.95 had granted their request

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain tax are as under:- (a) The lands transferred were non-agricultural lands because from the description of schedule of properties that the lands are converted from agricultural to non-agricultural for residential purpose. Therefore, the nature of the lands is non- agricultural when the transfer took place. (b) In view of section 80 of Karnataka Land Reforms

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gain tax are as under:- (a) The lands transferred were non-agricultural lands because from the description of schedule of properties that the lands are converted from agricultural to non-agricultural for residential purpose. Therefore, the nature of the lands is non- agricultural when the transfer took place. (b) In view of section 80 of Karnataka Land Reforms

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

94,378/- returned the taxable income at 'nil' with carry forward business loss of Rs. 2,91,52,776/-. 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

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

7 of 19 to them in clauses (a), (e) and (l) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Depositories Act, 1996. (3)The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co-operative society

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.

7 M/s. MHM Holding Pvt. Ltd. applicable to computation of capital gain on slump sale and these provisions specifically lay down the methodology of computation in Sec.50B(2) of the Act, in relation to computation of capital gain. Capital gains arising on slump sale are calculated as the difference between sale consideration and the net worth of the undertaking