DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

property by party’s own act as distinguished from acquisition by act of law. In the context in which the expression issued by the Legislature requires first to be understood and interpretation that suits the context requires to be adopted. Exemption of capital gains under Section 54G of the Act can be claimed on transfer of assets in cases

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

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 be computed, by deducting from

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

54G or sub-section (2) of section 54GB , shall utilise the whole or any part of the amount so withdrawn for the purposes specified in sub-section (1) of the section in relation to which the deposit has been made. (2) The amount withdrawn shall be utilised by the depositor within sixty days from the date of such withdrawal

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

SRI. A.R. PRASAD,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

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

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

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 in those cases. Section

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

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

SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDYT vs. DCIT,

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

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

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 of a capital asset into

SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDYT vs. DCIT,

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

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

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 of a capital asset into

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

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 in those cases. Section

MANOJ KUMAR EKAMBARAM ARCOT,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

54G and 54GA. For all the notices, the assessee had not filed their reply and thereafter a show cause notice for imposing penalty was issued to the assessee. The assessee appeared through the authorized representative and submitted that the assessee had purchased a new property and produced the copy of the sale agreement. The assessee had not produced any documents