GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

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

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

54B for availing the deduction then the issue of treatment of the income as business income or STCG becomes academic in nature being revenue neutral. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss these grounds of the assessee's appeal. Assessment Year 2006-07 19. For the Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessee has raised following grounds

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

54B of the Act has to be deleted. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below; “Hence, we find that the Assessing Officer has taken up the issue and initiated proceedings for complete scrutiny without necessary approval with him. Therefore, the issue taken up by the Assessing Officer regarding disallowance of deduction under section

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) considered the submission of the assessee and relying on the judgment of jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar [(2012) 345 ITR 389 (Kar.) observed

SRI. G.A. RAMASWAMY REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri G.A.Ramaswamy Reddy, No.173, Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aanhr 4650 L Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

section 54B, the AO disallowed the claim on two grounds - (i) consideration paid for purchase of another agricultural land situated

SHRI. MALLAPPA SHARANAPPA UDNOOR,GULBARGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 54B & 54F of the Act then the claim of deduction cannot be disallowed only on the ground that the assessee

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

54B or section 54D or section 54EC or section 54F or section 54G or section 54GA or section 54GB were inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 which is effective from 01.04.2020, but the impugned case on hand is related to the AY 2018-19 & therefore the exemption u/s 54/54F can be claimed even without filling a return of income. Lastly

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance made u/s 80P of the Act is bad in law. M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari Ni, Raichur Page 3 of 13 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 363 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The CIT(A) order has been served to the assessee on 30.10.2021. As per section

NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

54B and 54F of the Act. In reply the assessee stated in the year 2005 i.e. on 31.3.2005 a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- has been contributed towards house construction. Till that date a loan of Rs.2,10,00,000/- was taken from Bank which was also utilized for construction. Therefore to the extent

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 54B. 44. The CIT(Appeals) held as follows:- “11.5 I have considered the issue very carefully. Undisputedly, the appellant has sold converted lands as mentioned above. These are not agricultural lands to claim exemptions u/s 54B. For the detailed reasons mentioned by the AO I am in complete agreement with the AO that the appellant is not eligible

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 54B. 44. The CIT(Appeals) held as follows:- “11.5 I have considered the issue very carefully. Undisputedly, the appellant has sold converted lands as mentioned above. These are not agricultural lands to claim exemptions u/s 54B. For the detailed reasons mentioned by the AO I am in complete agreement with the AO that the appellant is not eligible

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 54B. 44. The CIT(Appeals) held as follows:- “11.5 I have considered the issue very carefully. Undisputedly, the appellant has sold converted lands as mentioned above. These are not agricultural lands to claim exemptions u/s 54B. For the detailed reasons mentioned by the AO I am in complete agreement with the AO that the appellant is not eligible

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 54B. 44. The CIT(Appeals) held as follows:- “11.5 I have considered the issue very carefully. Undisputedly, the appellant has sold converted lands as mentioned above. These are not agricultural lands to claim exemptions u/s 54B. For the detailed reasons mentioned by the AO I am in complete agreement with the AO that the appellant is not eligible

DEVAPPA MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

section 2(14) disallow. of I.T.Act ___ 2 Expenses at the time of Claimed of Rs.3,75,000/- Rs.7,39,884/- purchase (before indexation claimed) 3 Land scaping & Other Indexation cost of Rs.1,94,20,600/- expenses claimed of improvement claimed as deduction is disallowed in the absence of proof. 4 Stamp duty actually paid Claimed

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 54F of the Act, capital gain was invested in construction of residential house, but the fact that actual construction was completed beyond the period contemplated u/s. 54F of the Act was no ground to deny the benefit of deduction u/s. 54F. Applying the same analogy, the assessee pleaded that the capital gain in question should be allowed as deduction

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

disallowance made, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee sold residential house on 20/07/2012 and claimed exemption under section 54 for assessment year 2013-14 for investment in purchase/conception of Villa at APR, Bangalore. Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that as per provisions of section 54, the construction of the house

SYEDA MARIAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4), BENGALURU

In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There

disallowing exemption u/s. 548 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 5 The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the capital gains were reinvested in agricultural land in satisfaction of conditions laid down in section 54B

SHRI. MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Muniyappa Muniraju, No. 94/6, 8Th Main, The Income Tax New Oxford School Officer, Road, Ward – 4 (3)(4), Begur Main Road, Bangalore. Hongasandra, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan: Abbpm4961A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G. Satyanarayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri Nischal .B, Addl. Cit (Dr)

sections 54B or 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Page 6 of 14 the proceeds of sale were not re-invested in a new asset within the time period allowed as per the Income Tax Act and also failed to submit proper supporting evidences for investment. From the preceding paragraphs it is clear that the Assessee has received

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Income chargeable under the head capital gain accrues to an Assessee the moment, an Assessee effects transfer of a capital Asset. Sec.2