SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

house, building or premises or\nof his person, with the object of discovering some material which would furnish\nevidence of guilt for some offence with which he is charged. It implies a prying\ninto hidden places for that which is concealed. When once the search starts it\ncan go on continuously day or night, rain, or shine. There

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

45,80,090/-. The said return of income was\nduly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the\nassessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under E-\nassessment scheme, 2019 on the following issues:\ni. Details of assets and liabilities\n\n3.1 Accordingly, the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were\nissued

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income belatedly on 29th March, 2013 under section 139(4), declaring total income of Rs. 8,32,830/-. The return of income was selected for framing scrutiny assessment by Revenue under CASS. Statuary notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Company supra, in support of the contention that search under Section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act but it is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. There is no cavil on this proposition that search under Section 132 or requisition under 132A

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Company supra, in support of the contention that search under Section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act but it is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. There is no cavil on this proposition that search under Section 132 or requisition under 132A

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Housing Development Company supra, in support of the contention that search under Section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act but it is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. There is no cavil on this proposition that search under Section 132 or requisition under 132A

SMT. REHANA ABDUL JABBAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

45 as a result of the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act, ought to have been brought to tax as deemed "Capital Gains" only after the expiry of 3 years where the appellant had not constructed / purchased any residential house as per the conditions of Section 54F of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances

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

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to Page

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

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

property\", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain\narising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the\nbasis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be,\nclause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date 3 [constructed, one residential house in India], then, instead of the capital gain being

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

45,40,68,935/-in its books and made t\nentries clamming that land bearing Sy. No. 116 and 27 were its assets, without transferrinį.\nKhata No. and titles. The said entry did not result in actual transfer and shall only be character\nas an internal adjustment.\n3.14 Therefore, from the above discussion, it is noticed that the Trust

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

45, reads as under:-\n“If summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income\ntax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of the Income\ntax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the\nIndian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under subsection (1) of section

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

3 The Assessee has purchased only a vacant site on 24/08/2017. 4 The Assessee has not made any investment in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme as mandated under IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 4 of 16 section 54(2) of the Act. 5 The construction has not been completed within three years period i.e. within 31/07/2018

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

45 of 96 duly taken note of by the Hon’ble Bombay High when their Lordships observed as follows: "That, in order to attract s. 53A, the following conditions need to be fulfilled. There should be contract for consideration; it should be in writing; it should be signed by the transferor; it should pertain to the transfer of immovable property

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

45 of 96 duly taken note of by the Hon’ble Bombay High when their Lordships observed as follows: "That, in order to attract s. 53A, the following conditions need to be fulfilled. There should be contract for consideration; it should be in writing; it should be signed by the transferor; it should pertain to the transfer of immovable property

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

45 of 96 duly taken note of by the Hon’ble Bombay High when their Lordships observed as follows: "That, in order to attract s. 53A, the following conditions need to be fulfilled. There should be contract for consideration; it should be in writing; it should be signed by the transferor; it should pertain to the transfer of immovable property

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

3 of KLAD\nAct, it is only the State Government which can declare any\narea as an Industrial area by a notification, and specify the\nlimits of such area. Thus, the Board's acquisition powers\nare ring fenced by the State Government's authority. As per\nsection 28 of KIAD Act, the State Government can acquire\nland for the purpose

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

3 of KLAD\nAct, it is only the State Government which can declare any\narea as an Industrial area by a notification, and specify the\nlimits of such area. Thus, the Board's acquisition powers\nare ring fenced by the State Government's authority. As per\nsection 28 of KIAD Act, the State Government can acquire\nland for the purpose