JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

gain shown by the assessee. Here, we feel pertinent to refer the order of the co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Indravadan Jain HUF in ITA No. 4861/Mum/2014. In the said case the assessee Indravadan Jain HUF . Page 10 of 19 purchased share of M/s Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd in the year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 [D]\n14,60,95,303\n54,28,86,124\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial\nportion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 | [D] | 54,28,86,124\n14,60,95,303\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial\nportion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 [D]\n14,60,95,303\n54,28,86,124\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings, the A.O. held that the liability\nto capital gains arises for the assessment year 2017-18 as\noccupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial\nportion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

long- term capital gains computed by virtue of sale deed stood adjusted by virtue of payment made by assessee for purchasing another property under Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.09.2003. As such, Tribunal has rightly held that date of purchase was to be taken as the basis for reckoning the period of two years prescribed under Section

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

long- term capital gains computed by virtue of sale deed stood adjusted by virtue of payment made by assessee for purchasing another property under Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.09.2003. As such, Tribunal has rightly held that date of purchase was to be taken as the basis for reckoning the period of two years prescribed under Section

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

long as \"transfer\" took place as per the generally accepted\nconnotation of the term under Transfer of Property Act. The\nresultant position was that the levy of capital gain tax thus\nresulted in major amendments in the income-tax statute. The main\nobjective of those amendments was to enact that for the purposes\nof capital gains, the transaction involving transfer

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

long-term capital gains ('LTCG') arising from sale of listed securities on recognized stock exchange at 20 per cent instead of 10 per cent 15.1 The learned Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in law in levying tax at the rate of 20 per cent on LTCG arising from sale of listed shares of USL on recognized stock exchange instead of beneficial

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

long-term capital gains ('LTCG') arising from sale of listed securities on recognized stock exchange at 20 per cent instead of 10 per cent 15.1 The learned Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in law in levying tax at the rate of 20 per cent on LTCG arising from sale of listed shares of USL on recognized stock exchange instead of beneficial

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Long Term Capital Gains\" after\n\nITA No.1926/Bang/2024\n& 299/Bang/2025\nPage 17 of 20\n\ndeducting indexed cost of acquisition, improvement, and selling\nexpenses.\n34.2 The Assessing Officer, however, treated the activity as a business\nventure, holding that the assessee purchased land, developed it through\nthe builder, and sold the flats as part of a commercial venture. The AO\nalso

VINOD PRASAD INJETI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, we reverse the orders of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

price of Rs.1 Crore, long term capital loss was determined at a loss of Rs.85,79,967. 6. Subsequently a rectification order was passed on 22.2.2017 with assessed income of Rs. 2,24,418. Subsequent to that, another Page 5 of 10 rectification was carried out by order u/s. 154 of the Act on 29.12.2017. In that rectification order

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

term capital gains of Rs. 1,65,93,642/- was computed and offered to tax by the appellant based on sale consideration received as per sale deed dated 21.03.2016. 8. Thereafter, the case of the appellant was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was issued on the appellant by ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Long Term Capital Gains\" after\n\nITA No.1926/Bang/2024\n& 299/Bang/2025\n\nPage 17 of 20\n\ndeducting indexed cost of acquisition, improvement, and selling\nexpenses.\n\n34.2 The Assessing Officer, however, treated the activity as a business\nventure, holding that the assessee purchased land, developed it through\nthe builder, and sold the flats as part of a commercial venture

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

long term capital gain ('LTCG') of Rs.\n22,55,37,300/- arising from sale of bonus shares. The Assessee\nwas issued a notice under section 148 of the Act by the learned\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) (“AO”) on\n31.03.2021 to reassess the income for AY 2017-18. The notice\nrequired the Assessee to file

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

long term capital gain ('LTCG') of Rs.\n22,55,37,300/- arising from sale of bonus shares. The Assessee\nwas issued a notice under section 148 of the Act by the learned\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) (“AO”) on\n31.03.2021 to reassess the income for AY 2017-18. The notice\nrequired the Assessee to file

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

transferred by the appellant is Nil which is contrary to the provisions of section 49 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appellant's appeal by way of a non-speaking, cryptic order and merely extracting portions of the assessment order

SMT. SWAMIAPPAN PUNITHAVATHI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

price as in the case in hand. The value of land at which it was sold is high as comparable as that of a commercial property. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case he found it clear that the land was not an agriculture land when it was sold and the assessee had no intention

SRI. SWAMIAPPAN ARUL KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

price as in the case in hand. The value of land at which it was sold is high as comparable as that of a commercial property. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case he found it clear that the land was not an agriculture land when it was sold and the assessee had no intention

SRI. SWAMIAPPAN ANAND KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

price as in the case in hand. The value of land at which it was sold is high as comparable as that of a commercial property. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case he found it clear that the land was not an agriculture land when it was sold and the assessee had no intention