SHRI. K V SATISH BABU [HUF],MYSURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2[1], MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

reassessing the income filed for the assessment year 2011-12; the assessee made a request for reasons recorded for reopening, which was furnished. The same reads as under: “The assessee is the owner of agricultural lands bearing survey Nos 331/2 Part-P2, P4, survey No.367/2A, 2B, 373/P1 and 373/P2 totally measuring 9 acres 12 guntas, situated at Belavadi Village, Kasaba

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

reassessment proceedings pursuant to which order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 1st October 2014 were passed. making an addition of Rs 2,03,53,228 for each of the Appellants as income from capital gains. thereby determining total income at Rs 2,03,53,230 & Rs 2,06,22,148. Aggrieved with the order

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

reassessment proceedings pursuant to which order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 1st October 2014 were passed. making an addition of Rs 2,03,53,228 for each of the Appellants as income from capital gains. thereby determining total income at Rs 2,03,53,230 & Rs 2,06,22,148. Aggrieved with the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

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

reassessment proceedings, the\nassessee had submitted photographs showing that the\nproject was still under construction, which substantiates\nthat the transaction was not complete. Therefore, we hold\nthat the addition of Rs.1,71,13,333/- made by the Ld. AO\nand sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is unsustainable. The same\nis directed to be deleted.\n(iii) Sunil Kumar

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

reassessment made is required to be cancelled. Though, this was pursued in appeal by the Revenue before the High Court, the same stood disposed of by the High Court by dismissing the appeal on monitory limit and upheld the order of the Tribunal. 18. In alternative, it is respectfully submitted that since development agreement was entered on 12.05.2004 and Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous

M/S HOTEL WOODSIDE,MANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri. A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment under section 147 of the Act is void and of no effect. Respectfully following the same, we allow Grounds 2,3, 6 & 7. 4. Grounds 4, 5, 10, 10.1, 14 & 15 are in respect of, whether, transfer of property occurred u/s.2(47)(v) of the Act. This issue was subject matter of dissent by Hon’ble Accountant Member

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MONICA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act apply to an asset held as a Capital asset ITA Nos. 1353 to 1356/Bang/2015 & C.O. Nos. 93 to 96/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 21 /investment & not to Stock In Trade.” 13. In the present case, the asset in question is capital asset and not stock in trade and therefore, in our considered opinion

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS. MARGRIT GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act apply to an asset held as a Capital asset ITA Nos. 1353 to 1356/Bang/2015 & C.O. Nos. 93 to 96/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 21 /investment & not to Stock In Trade.” 13. In the present case, the asset in question is capital asset and not stock in trade and therefore, in our considered opinion

ITO, BANGALORE vs. MRS.ANITHA GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act apply to an asset held as a Capital asset ITA Nos. 1353 to 1356/Bang/2015 & C.O. Nos. 93 to 96/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 21 /investment & not to Stock In Trade.” 13. In the present case, the asset in question is capital asset and not stock in trade and therefore, in our considered opinion

ITO, BANGALORE vs. DR. ARVIND GOVERDHAN, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four COs are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act apply to an asset held as a Capital asset ITA Nos. 1353 to 1356/Bang/2015 & C.O. Nos. 93 to 96/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 21 /investment & not to Stock In Trade.” 13. In the present case, the asset in question is capital asset and not stock in trade and therefore, in our considered opinion

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings Assessing Officer after considering stand taken by assessee held that since original development agreement and power of attorney were cancelled, it could not be treated as transfer under section 2(47) - However, AO treated advance received by assessee as windfall gain assessable as income from other sources - Whether since reopening of assessment was by invoking section

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings Assessing Officer after considering stand taken by assessee held that since original development agreement and power of attorney were cancelled, it could not be treated as transfer under section 2(47) - However, AO treated advance received by assessee as windfall gain assessable as income from other sources - Whether since reopening of assessment was by invoking section

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings Assessing Officer after considering stand taken by assessee held that since original development agreement and power of attorney were cancelled, it could not be treated as transfer under section 2(47) - However, AO treated advance received by assessee as windfall gain assessable as income from other sources - Whether since reopening of assessment was by invoking section

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each A Y on the ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page 42 of 89 basis of the findings of the search