SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

54B of the Act since the appellant’s failure to produce the documents was onacocunt of reasonable cause that there were litigation in respect of the said property. Thus, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and consequently levy of penalty under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act was uncalled for. 6. On the facts

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

54B,54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 5 Dr. Devika Gunasheela, Bengaluru Page 4 of 19 4H, 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. Under Section 48 of the Act, income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" shall

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

54B or sub-section (2) of section 54D or sub-section (4) of section 54F or sub-section (2) of section 54G or sub-section (2) of section 54GB , shall utilise the whole or any part of the amount so withdrawn for the purposes specified in sub-section (1) of the section in relation to which the deposit has been

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

house property and assessee is illiterate. She is not aware of the income tax proceedings. She has signed the document only using thumb impression which is also certified by the notary. Assessee invested towards purchase of agricultural land to which the AO has allowed under section 54B

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

house for his own residential purpose, therefore, no transfer took place during FY 2006-07 and therefore, the question of offering the proceeds of transfer for capital gains tax does not arise in the A.Y. 2007-08. According to the CIT(A), the execution of sale deed by BDA in favour of the assessee took place only on 11.10.1995. Therefore

SHIVAKUMAR KHENY (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

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

house property. It was also argued that as per the provisions of Section 269 UA(f)(i) read with section 27 (iiib) of the Act, a person acquiring any rights through a lease for a period exceeding 12 years would be treated as the owner. 6. The above arguments did not find favour either with

SRI. G.S. SHIVANNA(HUF),BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-4, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

54B, 54C, 54D, 54G: 54GA 5) 4. The assessee in reply dated 08.11.2017 submitted the following details: Copy of the return for A.Y 2014-15 was filed. 1) Statement of Assessee’s SB A/c no: 12982 with Vijaya 2) Bank which was closed on 03.01.2013. . The Assessee submitted that it had invested the sale 3) consideration

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

54B, 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

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

house was also substantially complete. In the appellant's case as discussed supra, there is no evidence that she had been given possession of the new property or that she had occupied the same. In CIT and Mr. vs Smt. B.S. Shanthakumari in ITA No.165/2014 , the Ho'ble High Court of Karnataka had placed reliance on its judgment

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

house. Thus, it was contended that the AO was not justified in restricting the benefit of deduction Rs.28 lakhs. As regards denial of benefit under section 54B, it was contended that since the property

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

properties. 1. Residential house at No. 188, 5th Main, 4th block, Jayanagar. 2. Flat at Hyderabad 3. 3 flats in NS English County. 4. Farm house at Sy. No. 32, Golahalli Village owned jointly along with his father. 40. As the assessee did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in the proviso to Section 54F(1), exemption u/s 54F claimed

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

properties. 1. Residential house at No. 188, 5th Main, 4th block, Jayanagar. 2. Flat at Hyderabad 3. 3 flats in NS English County. 4. Farm house at Sy. No. 32, Golahalli Village owned jointly along with his father. 40. As the assessee did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in the proviso to Section 54F(1), exemption u/s 54F claimed

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

properties. 1. Residential house at No. 188, 5th Main, 4th block, Jayanagar. 2. Flat at Hyderabad 3. 3 flats in NS English County. 4. Farm house at Sy. No. 32, Golahalli Village owned jointly along with his father. 40. As the assessee did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in the proviso to Section 54F(1), exemption u/s 54F claimed

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

properties. 1. Residential house at No. 188, 5th Main, 4th block, Jayanagar. 2. Flat at Hyderabad 3. 3 flats in NS English County. 4. Farm house at Sy. No. 32, Golahalli Village owned jointly along with his father. 40. As the assessee did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in the proviso to Section 54F(1), exemption u/s 54F claimed

SRI.LOKESH M, LR OF SMT MALATHI LOKESH ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

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

house other than the new asset as on the date of transfer of the original asset, the Assessee ought not to have been allowed deduction u/s.54F of the Act. In the case of Mrs.Malathi Lokesh, the CIT found that she was a co owner in all the properties referred to above with Lokesh and therefore she was also not entitled

SRI.LOKESH M, ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

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

house other than the new asset as on the date of transfer of the original asset, the Assessee ought not to have been allowed deduction u/s.54F of the Act. In the case of Mrs.Malathi Lokesh, the CIT found that she was a co owner in all the properties referred to above with Lokesh and therefore she was also not entitled

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

property exceeding a specified floor area, whether by way of ownership, tenancy or otherwise, as may be specified by the Board in this behalf; or (ii) is the owner or the lessee of a motor vehicle other than a two-wheeled motor vehicle, whether having any detachable side car having extra wheel attached to such two-wheeled motor vehicle

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

property was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. The agreement itself recorded that a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- was paid in cash on execution of the agreement. There is an endorsement in the agreement that a further sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- was paid in cash on 14th July

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

property agreed to be purchased from Ramakrishna.K.C., there were disputes in the courts of law and therefore the sale could not be completed. Stand of the assessee was that as per the requirements of section 54B of the Act, capital gain had to be utilised in purchase of another agricultural land and the fact that assessee had paid the entire