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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Housing Development\nand Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) (seller) had changed the year of purchase\nmanually from 2009 to 2017. HDIL is currently under investigation in Mumbai for\nvarious frauds with Banks and other legal agencies. Copy of purchase agreement\nis attached.\n4 The M/s HDIL (seller) had changed the agreement date to 2017 from 2009on the\ntop page of the agreement

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House property Rs. 4,19,043/- B. Business Income Rs. 4,50,000/- C. Short term capital gain taxable at normal rate Rs. 58,95,682/- (Rs. 63,96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461) D. Interest Income Rs. 1,16,275/- Total (A+B+C+D) Rs. 68,81,000/- 4.2 Further, the assessee against

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property\nRs. 4,19,043/-\nB. Business Income\nRs. 4,50,000/-\nC. Short term capital gain taxable at normal rate\nRs. 58,95,682/-\n(Rs. 63,96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461)\nD. Interest Income\nRs. 1,16,275/-\nTotal (A+B+C+D)\nRs. 68,81,000/-\n4.2 Further, the assessee

SRI MOHAN PURI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

house on the date of sale of property and was paid through banking channels. It was further stated that the assessee has referred the new property for valuation as per point 8(d) of the reference u/s 55A of the Act. However, the DVO has not valued the improvements made on the assets purchased. 10.3 The learned Departmental Representative supported

VINAY KONCHADY SHENOY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

55A of the I.T. Act and proceeding to compute the Long Term Capital Gains adopting alleged guidance value as deemed consideration as the Appellant has clearly mentioned that the he has obtained the Valuation report dated 20.11.2020 from the Registered Valuer. 4. The Appellant objects the levy Interest u/s. 234A B and C consequent to above addition. 5. The Appellant

PRITHVIRAJ LEKKAD MALLIKARJUN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

55A of the Act to arrive at the Fair Market Value as on 01.04.2001 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned authorities below ought to have 2611416 allowed the transfer expenses amounting to Rs.84,86,361/- incurred by the appellant towards sale of property under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. a) The appellant

SHRI. VADAGUR NARAYANAPPA PREMACHANDRA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

55A of the Act since the assessee had accepted the valuation fixed by the Valuation officer at the initial stage. In respect of the other contention that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the same for the reason that the construction of the new asset was well beyond