ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset in his hands and computed the capital gain on entering into release deed/relinquished deed. The AO however, treated it as business transaction and determined the business income from this transaction as against the income shown by assessee under head “Capital gain”. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 19.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

undisclosed scrap sale. 6. The learned Commissioner (A)ought to have refrained from upholding the computation of capital gains on the transfer of property to M/s.Gopalan Enterprises. 7. On the facts the learned Commissioner (A) ought to have allowed the cost of purchase of steel claimed by the appellant while computing the capital gains. 8. The learned Commissioner (Al ought

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

undisclosed income, the initiation of proceedings and passing of the order u/s 153A is bad in law. 5. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 without considering the material on record and the written submissions, erred in upholding the addition of Rs.3,38,75,000/- as business income 6. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

undisclosed income, the initiation of proceedings and passing of the order u/s 153A is bad in law. 5. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 without considering the material on record and the written submissions, erred in upholding the addition of Rs.3,38,75,000/- as business income 6. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

undisclosed income i.e. the capital gain on transfer of land. We see merit in the contention of the ld DR that

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. C. NARASIMHAIAH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

undisclosed income vide his letter dated 09-3-2009. 2 ITA No.206(B)/12 & C.O. No.4(B)2015 3. The CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the addition as the assessee had given possession of the property to M/s Renaisance and received the sale consideration and also there was no evidence to prove that the amount received in lieu

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 Gain shown by assessee is not genuine one and it is cash credit u/s. 68 of IT Act, 1961 representing undisclosed income

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 Gain shown by assessee is not genuine one and it is cash credit u/s. 68 of IT Act, 1961 representing undisclosed income

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 Gain shown by assessee is not genuine one and it is cash credit u/s. 68 of IT Act, 1961 representing undisclosed income

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 Gain shown by assessee is not genuine one and it is cash credit u/s. 68 of IT Act, 1961 representing undisclosed income