MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

section 54F before its amendment can be extended to a residential house purchased outside India 11. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in light of the judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction.” 7.4 Regarding non-claiming of deduction in the return of income filed by the assessee

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

53A of the TP Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act will not apply in a situation before us. The argument of the Ld. D.R. is that the income of the assessee has to be assessed as business income as the assessee received sales consideration and that amount

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

53A of the TP Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act will not apply in a situation before us. The argument of the Ld. D.R. is that the income of the assessee has to be assessed as business income as the assessee received sales consideration and that amount

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

53A of the TP Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act will not apply in a situation before us. The argument of the Ld. D.R. is that the income of the assessee has to be assessed as business income as the assessee received sales consideration and that amount

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

53A of the\nTransfer of Property Act, and the ratio laid down in the\nabove judgements became the settled position of law till the\n assessment year 2016-17 and thereafter an amendment\nwas made by inserting a new provision of section 45(5A) of\nthe Act applicable with effect from assessment year 2017-18\nand onwards.\n18.The appellant submits

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

properties vide Ground Nos. 6 & 7 in memo of appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the two houses at Mavalli were registered in the name of the assessee for Rs. 81,90,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini

SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD MIKKLINENI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

housing workmen and security personnel and storage of material,. the developer shall remove its men and material and vacate the schedule property on the completion of the project or on termination or rescission of this agreement for any reason whatsoever; notwithstanding the use of the schedule property by the developer for the project, the possession of the schedule property shall

SMT.VANI SHREE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 2(47)(v)of the Act r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act took place on that date and hence the capital gains arising from the JDA was to be assessed in A.Y. 201516. The AO accepted this submission of the assessee as declared in the return of income. 2.4 In the return, the assessee had shown full

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. All these factors have\nnot been examined or considered by the Investigation team or the AO\nin arriving at a conclusion.\n5.13 Without establishing but presuming that the appellant purchased\nshares in FY 2017-18, the AO invoked section 56(2)(x) of the Act.\nHence, the said action is unwarranted and unjust

M/S GODHA REALTORS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

house by an order of the competent Court. The Court, in view of such peculiar facts of the case and looking to the definition of "transfer" u/s. 2(47) of the Act, was of the view that the assessee was entitled to relief u/s. 54 of the Act. 20. This judgment, contrary to what was strenuously canvassed before us, does

M/S GODHA REALTORS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

house by an order of the competent Court. The Court, in view of such peculiar facts of the case and looking to the definition of "transfer" u/s. 2(47) of the Act, was of the view that the assessee was entitled to relief u/s. 54 of the Act. 20. This judgment, contrary to what was strenuously canvassed before us, does

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Properties Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, No.17, Sankey Road, Central Circle 2(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. PAN: AAACC 5900A Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihally, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Advocate. Date of hearing : 02.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These appeals by the revenue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Properties Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, No.17, Sankey Road, Central Circle 2(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. PAN: AAACC 5900A Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihally, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Advocate. Date of hearing : 02.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member These appeals by the revenue

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

53A of the Act which relates to assessment in case of search or requisition. The Prerequisite condition for application of Sec. 153A of the Act is a search conducted Under section 132 of Page 20 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore the Act or any requisition made under section 132A of the Act to Unearth

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

53A of the Act which relates to assessment in case of search or requisition. The Prerequisite condition for application of Sec. 153A of the Act is a search conducted Under section 132 of Page 20 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore the Act or any requisition made under section 132A of the Act to Unearth