SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

54B is not sustainable and the same is deleted.” 5.14 He further relied on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in CBS International Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (ITA No. 144/Delhi/2019 dated 28.02.2019) wherein it was held as under; (placed at Page 64 to 71 of assessee’s paper book) “16. A perusal of the aforesaid instruction shows that

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

section 54B of the Act, capital gain had to be utilised in purchase of another agricultural land and the fact that assessee had paid the entire sum of Rs.4,68

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,950 was brought to tax as long term capital gain. 30. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that he had sold some sites as well as agricultural lands, the details of which are as under:- Particulars Purchase Cost Extent Sale Sale Price Date Date Sy.No.24/2, 10.11.1994 2,12,952 1.31 guntas 27.8.2003 17,25,000 Kalkere Village

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,950 was brought to tax as long term capital gain. 30. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that he had sold some sites as well as agricultural lands, the details of which are as under:- Particulars Purchase Cost Extent Sale Sale Price Date Date Sy.No.24/2, 10.11.1994 2,12,952 1.31 guntas 27.8.2003 17,25,000 Kalkere Village

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,950 was brought to tax as long term capital gain. 30. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that he had sold some sites as well as agricultural lands, the details of which are as under:- Particulars Purchase Cost Extent Sale Sale Price Date Date Sy.No.24/2, 10.11.1994 2,12,952 1.31 guntas 27.8.2003 17,25,000 Kalkere Village

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,950 was brought to tax as long term capital gain. 30. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that he had sold some sites as well as agricultural lands, the details of which are as under:- Particulars Purchase Cost Extent Sale Sale Price Date Date Sy.No.24/2, 10.11.1994 2,12,952 1.31 guntas 27.8.2003 17,25,000 Kalkere Village

SHRI MUNIYAPPA NARASHIMAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

68,27,330/- in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13. In so far as Assessment Year 2013-14 is concerned, the assessee received enhanced compensation of Rs.44,77,379/-. The assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13 was concluded by the AO on 30.09.2016. In so far Assessment Year 2013-14 is concerned, on 11.03.2016 the AO passed

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

68,251/- made in the order passed u/s. 153A of the Act is beyond the scope of the present proceedings since the assessment is not an abated assessment especially considering the absence of incriminating material relating to the conversion of the erstwhile firm into the appellant company found during the course of search for the year under appeal and hence

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

68,25,802/- on the alleged transfer of property during the year invoking the provisions of sec. 50C of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.1 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that there was no transfer of the property during the year under appeal and hence, the computation