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

terms of the JDA, the landowners transferred 61.5% of their ownership in the land in lieu of 38.5% of the super built up area in the form of villas and row house. The assesses’s share in the flats to be received as part of the JDA is 15% of the SBA. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold

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

terms of the JDA, the landowners transferred 61.5% of their ownership in the land in lieu of 38.5% of the super built up area in the form of villas and row house. The assesses’s share in the flats to be received as part of the JDA is 15% of the SBA. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold

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

disallowed and the long term\ncapital gain on sale of land is reworked as below :\nSale Consideration\nLess : Cost of Acquisition\nLong term Capital

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

long term capital gains are fulfilled. 6. It should have been appreciated that only the unutilized amount has to be invested in a special account u/s 54(2) and when there is such utilization before the date of filing u/s 139, which includes 139(4), the requirement of deposit in special account does not arise. 7. The NFAC ought

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

long term capital gain was disallowed by the Ld.AO as assessee did not discharge the onus to establish the source

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

long term capital gain was disallowed by the Ld.AO as assessee did not discharge the onus to establish the source

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

long term capital gain was disallowed by the Ld.AO as assessee did not discharge the onus to establish the source

M/S. MEDI ASSIST INSURANCE TPA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

disallowed by insurance company – Rs. 4,68,655/- 2) Short term capital gain on slump sale – Rs.7,80,38,453/- 3) Software expenses – Rs. 16,42,976/- 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee and upheld the computation

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

long term capital gain at Rs. 41,08,845 and offered the same for taxation. The property sold was an apartment constructed by Brigade Enterprises Pvt Ltd. in pursuance of the agreement executed on 29.06.2006 Subsequently a sale deed was executed on 17.05.2010 In Accordance with the agreement dated 09.06.2006 the land value was fixed

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

Disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,08,54,687; (ii) Non-consideration of claim of assessee that capital gain on sale of land and building has to be bifurcated into two i.e, (a) capital gain on sale of land which has to be regarded as long term

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

long term capital gains in assessee case are computed at Rs. 60,48,571/- (Rs. 1,33,89,451 — Rs. 73,40,480) and brought to tax during A.Y. 2015-16. Disallowance

SHRI. K.T. SANATH,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

long term capital gain are delivery based and same are held as investment in the books of account, then the AO cannot treat such investment as stock-in-trade. He has further pointed out that the entire investment in shares has been made by the assessee from his own funds and no borrowed fund has been used for the purpose

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

Disallowance of Interest Paid in Computing Long Term Capital Gain 7,82,394 ----------------- Assessed Income 2,66,18,966 ----------------- & CO 86/Bang/2015

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

long term capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house.” 27. In light of the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, we find force in the contention of the assessee that the residential house

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

long term capital gain. Our attention was drawn to the following extracts of the judgement: As held by the Tribunal at the relevant time there was no power vested in the authorities under the Act to substitute a full value of consideration received for sale of shares by fair market value in respect of stocks a nd shares. The power

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA THEATRES LIMITED,UDUPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance of Rs.1 crore u/s.54 EC of the IT Act. The case of the assessee is that the assessee has declared long-term capital gains

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowing the general & administrative expenses claimed by the appellant as a deduction in the return. 2.9 On verification of the details furnished by the appellant in the course of assessment proceedings, as described above, the learned A.O. had passed the assessment order dated 18-12-2017 accepting the Long term Capital gains

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowing the general & administrative expenses claimed by the appellant as a deduction in the return. 2.9 On verification of the details furnished by the appellant in the course of assessment proceedings, as described above, the learned A.O. had passed the assessment order dated 18-12-2017 accepting the Long term Capital gains