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

price paid or promised or part paid and part promise. Sale how made – Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

price originally agreed, there would be no extra benefit that the assessee would be deriving from transfer of the asset. The amendment made to the provisions of Section 50C

MR.SANTHOSH GOKUL REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

price of the property sold. Section 50C(1) provides that, "Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

price bargained for by the parties to the transaction. It has been further held that the consideration for the transfer of a capital asset is what the transferor receives in lieu of the assets he parts with, viz., money or money's worth, and, therefore, the very asset transferred or parted with cannot be the consideration for the transfer

SHRI BASAVARAJ GURUNANJAIAH HIREMATH ,GULBARGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 & TPS , GULBARGA

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2016-17

price for the relevant assessment year 2006-07?" The Court held as follows: “7. We have not been impressed by this submission. It is true that 'Transfer' has been defined in Section 2(47) quoted above. But the aforesaid definition was made before Section 50C

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

price than residential land. The other circumstantial factors\npointed out by the appellant were also not considered by the AO. It is\nalso not the case where, having caught, the appellant tried to obtain a\nvaluation report matching the purchase value. The valuation report\nwas part of the materials seized from the search premises and this\nevidence cannot be refuted

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

price received by the respondent was\nat the rate of Rs.136 per share the full value\nof the consideration must be taken at the rate\nof Rs.136 per share. The view that we have\nexpressed as to the interpretation of the main\npart of section 12B(2) is borne out by the fact\nthat in the first proviso to section

M/S FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

50C(1) Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases.(1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred

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

price received by the respondent was\nat the rate of Rs.136 per share the full value\nof the consideration must be taken at the rate\nof Rs.136 per share. The view that we have\nexpressed as to the interpretation of the main\npart of section 12B(2) is borne out by the fact\nthat in the first proviso to section

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

50C which reads as\nunder:\n"Special provision for full value of\nconsideration in certain cases.\n50C. (1) Where the consideration\nreceived or accruing as a result of the transfer\nby an assessee of a capital asset, being land\nITA Nos.775 & 954/Bang/2024\nSri Alagappa Muthiah (HUF), Bangalore\nITA Nos.776 & 955/Bang/2024\nSri Alagappa Annamalai (HUF), Bangalore\nPage

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

price was also disturbed. The learned CIT(A), in paragraph No.6.2.4 confirmed applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act and recalculation of cost of acquisition. Thus, the addition of Rs.8,36,25,000/- to the total income of the assessee was confirmed. This issue is under challenge before us. 9. The learned AR has stated that he would

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

price of Rs.150 crores as mention in sale agreement dated 01.06.2009. Hence, the base for fixing the value of consideration for the transfer of the asset was the year 2009 only, at which time stamp duty value per acre ranged from Rs.30 Lakhs to Rs.65 Lakhs, depending upon the survey numbers and the total value of the land transferred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. RAJ ARJUNA MENDA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

price fixed for transfer of shares of MIPL to Ambuja was Rs.84.58 Crores only in stark contrast to the income of Rs.409 Crores projected to the Bank. He pointed out that based on this projection, the AO estimated the total sale consideration of Rs.184.49 Crores out of which the assessee’s share of 13.29% was worked out at Rs.24

SMT. HIREHAL RAGHAVENDRA SOUDAMANI,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Hirehal Raghavendra Soudamini, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.66, ‘Shreema’ 1St Main, 5Th Cross, Ward –6[3][2], Rmv 2Nd Stage, 1St Block Aswath Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Apkps 4537 B Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2020 O R D E R

section 50C(2) of the Act. The AO made reference to the DVO but since the report had not been received by that time, the assessment was completed. The AO could not take cognizance of the same. 5. In the appellate proceedings before the First Appellate Authority i.e., CIT(A), the report of the DVO was available and it showed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SRI LINGARAJU GOWDARA MALLIKARJUNAPPA, CHITRADURGA

price than residential land. The other circumstantial factors\npointed out by the appellant were also not considered by the AO. It is\nalso not the case where, having caught, the appellant tried to obtain a\nvaluation report matching the purchase value. The valuation report\nwas part of the materials seized from the search premises and this\nevidence cannot be refuted

SPARKLE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18

price fixed during deed of declaration, through banking channels. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Appeal. 8. Wherefore on the above grounds and on such other grounds the prays the Appellate Authority to set aside the Revision

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

section 50C to ITA Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 16 hold that since the properties have been acquired at a much higher price than their market value, the borrowings to the extent of the difference between the price paid and the market value will not be considered as borrowings for the purpose of acquiring the properties. Whether such

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

section 50C to ITA Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 16 hold that since the properties have been acquired at a much higher price than their market value, the borrowings to the extent of the difference between the price paid and the market value will not be considered as borrowings for the purpose of acquiring the properties. Whether such