SMT. A.P. LAKSHMI GOWRI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property, income from partnership firms in which they were partners and also income from other sources. They filed their return of income for the subject AY declaring a total income of Nil and Rs 2,68,920/- respectively vide their returns of income filed on 9th March 2010. The said returns of income were processed under section

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

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

house property as on the date of investment in the new property and fully eligible to claim exemption U/s 54E of the Act. He further submitted that, the assessee, has only 50% owner of property cited above along with Mrs Bhagawanth Kaur in one and with Mrs Harleen Kaur in other property and no other properties were held

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

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 not to be charged

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.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

SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDYT vs. DCIT,

In the result, ITA No.1778/Bang/2012 (A

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

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. (1A) …….. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner

SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDYT vs. DCIT,

In the result, ITA No.1778/Bang/2012 (A

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

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. (1A) …….. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner

SRI SUDHEER VALSALA SREEKUMARAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14

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 not to be charged

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), BANGALORE vs. SRI TNN SHETTY(HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2005-06

property. The relevant portion from the said judgement is reproduced below: “8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and we are constrained to observe that the revenue ought not to have come up in appeal in the present case in view of the fact that there is no ambiguity in understanding the provisions of section 54E