POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

house property, capital gain and other sources. She filed return of income on 10 January 2018 declaring total taxable income of Rs.1,17,85,570/–. In the return of income the assessee has disclosed short-term

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house, the annual value of the properties must be determined and brought to tax.It is an undisputed fact that the assessee wanted to sell these two villas and he had entered into an agreement for sale and for this reason he kept the property vacant. We are of the considered opinion that for the application of section

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house, the annual value of the properties must be determined and brought to tax.It is an undisputed fact that the assessee wanted to sell these two villas and he had entered into an agreement for sale and for this reason he kept the property vacant. We are of the considered opinion that for the application of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

short term capital gain of Rs. 29,76,76,017/-.” 7. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 the cases of the assessee were assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the department treated the gain under similar facts as long term capital gain. Therefore, in view of the principle of consistency

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

short-term capital asset" and charged to tax as ordinary income. Gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset held by the taxpayer for more than 60 months are treated as "long-term capital 'gains" and charged to tax on a concessional basis. As the holding period of 60 months is unduly long and adversely affects the investment climate

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

House Property". Denial of long-term capital loss of Rs 2,725,693 on sale of a painting 19. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and on facts, by denying the claim of long-term capital loss on sale of a painting of Rs 2,725,693 without appreciating the submissions furnished by Appellant in support

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

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

short-term capital gain or a long-term capital gain.” Page 8 of 17 14. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the capital gain in question in the present case has to be treated as LTCG as claimed by the Assessee. Ground Nos.3 to 5 are accordingly allowed. 15. The next dispute

SHRI. K.T. SANATH,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

house property, income from business, income from short term capital gain and long term capital gain. The assessee has shown

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

property which was not allowed as a deduction while computing capital gain, can be allowed as a deduction? The CIT(A) without going into this question, went into the question of correctness of the assessee having bifurcated the capital gain on sale of land and Villa into long term and short term capital gains. According to CIT(A), the transaction

PRASHANTH PRAKASH,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I,.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2009-10

property which was not allowed as a deduction while computing capital gain, can be allowed as a deduction? The CIT(A) without going into this question, went into the question of correctness of the assessee having bifurcated the capital gain on sale of land and Villa into long term and short term capital gains. According to CIT(A), the transaction

M/S. ANUPAM RANJAN (HUF),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

short-term capital gain as the gain arised consequent to the assessee entered into JDA with M/s. Ashiana Marketing & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. on 11.1.2007. It was the contention of the assessee’s counsel that on commencing from the date of transfer of the land to the developer and ending on the date when the assessee sold its share of flats

PRADEEP KAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Geoergeassessment Year : 2006-07

Housing Society building and finally the constructed flat was allotted to the assessee on 22.2.2003, which was sold on 19.1.2006. The assessee offered the capital gain accrued on its sale as long term capital gain, whereas the AO treated it to be short term capital gain. Now the issue before us is the nature of capital gain accrued

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

property, which is to be taken into consideration in determining the period between the date of acquisition and date of transfer of such capital gain in order to decide whether it is a shortterm capital gain or a long term capital gain.” 10.1 Further, in the case of Richa Bagrodia in ITA No.3601/Mum/2012 dated 22.4.2014, the Tribunal considered similar issue

SRI MAHENDRASINGH RAMSINGH JADAV,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BENGALURU

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

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

short-term capital asset" and charged to tax as ordinary income. Gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset held by the taxpayer for more than 60 months are treated as "long-term capital 'gains" and charged to tax on a concessional basis. As the holding period of 60 months is unduly long and adversely affects the investment climate

L. VIVEKANANDA,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

property, which is to be taken into consideration in determining the period between the date of acquisition and date of transfer of such capital gain in order to decide whether it is a short- term capital gain or a long term capital gain.” 10.1 Further, in the case of Richa Bagrodia in ITA No.3601/Mum/2012 dated 22.4.2014, the Tribunal considered similar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

House, Chennai - 600 017. PAN : ANOPS 2178 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri. V. Sridhar, CA Revenue by Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing 29.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order passed by the learned CIT(A) 2, Panaji, vide

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

house without outsourcing the construction activity / work. The assessee also submitted that expenses of Rs. 44,17,542.00 incurred are nearly 9 to 10 years old and that the expenses incurred in 2000-2001 cannot be taken as income of the year under assessment i.e. 2005-06. The assessee submitted the details of expenses incurred as given in the table

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

house without outsourcing the construction activity / work. The assessee also submitted that expenses of Rs. 44,17,542.00 incurred are nearly 9 to 10 years old and that the expenses incurred in 2000-2001 cannot be taken as income of the year under assessment i.e. 2005-06. The assessee submitted the details of expenses incurred as given in the table