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

MALLIKARJUNAIAH ADVEESHAIAH HULLUKUNTE,BENGALURU vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

section 54D of ₹3,18,28,120 and construction cost of ₹1 crore. 4. The AO disallowed the deduction of ₹1 crore

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

M/S.FABSUN ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAILUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant uls 54G of the Act is accordingly, confirmed. The grounds of appeal raised in this regard are dismissed. 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee failed

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

disallowed only on the ground that the assessee did not deposit the capital gain in the capital gain account. The learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samandam Udaykumar 345 ITR 389 as well as the decision dt. 15.2.2016 in 5 the case

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

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

SMT.KONDAMMA ,BANGALORE ` vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Kondamma, No. 122/2, 6Th Main, The Income Tax Opp Srs Printer, Officer, Kammagondanhalli, Vs. Ward – 6 (2) (4), Jalahalli West, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 015. Pan: Atypk2334A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2019

54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H is chargeable to income tax under the head 'capital gains' and shall be deemed to be income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The aforesaid sections which form part of section 54 of the Act are cases where capital gain on transfer of capital asset

L. NAGAMANI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 54F, in the absence of deposition of the sale proceedings in capital gains account scheme under the facts and circumstances of the case? 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 6. For these and other grounds