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

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

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the taxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods, ignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The Hon'ble Court explained that the only exception was if Section

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

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

transfers his goods to another trader at a\nprice less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the\ntaxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods,\nignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The\nHon'ble Court explained that the only exception was if Section

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

transfers his goods to another trader at a\nprice less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the\ntaxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods,\nignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The\nHon'ble Court explained that the only exception was if Section

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

transfers his goods to another trader at a\nprice less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the\ntaxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods,\nignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The\nHon'ble Court explained that the only exception was if Section

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

transfers his goods to another trader at a\nprice less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the\ntaxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods,\nignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The\nHon'ble Court explained that the only exception was if Section

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the ITA Nos.1394 & 1395/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 26 taxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods, ignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The Hon'ble Court explained that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction is a bona fide one, the ITA Nos.1394 & 1395/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 26 taxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those goods, ignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. The Hon'ble Court explained that

SOUTH KANARA AGRICULTURISTS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., ,MANGALURU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

2) was issued on 31/8/2015 which resulted into the assessment wherein provisions of section 50C of The Income Tax Act was invoked stating that assessee has entered into a joint development agreement with MA Capital Smart Developers Mangalore Private Limited for sale of 90.50 cents for a consideration of ₹ 8 crores and also 30% of the built up area after

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

Section 69A of the Act.The addition is made out on basis of loose sheets of documents, which does not come under the ambit of ‘books of entry’ or as ‘evidence’ under the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: 57  CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410  Common Cause and others Vs. Union of India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

50C is not applicable in the case of purchaser\nand this provision being a deeming provision will apply for determining the full\nvalue of consideration as a result of transfer of capital assets for the purposes\nof computation of capital gains u/s.48 of the Act. We further find that there is\nno evidence on record to show that the consideration

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

50C while completing the assessment in the case of the seller. There is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK104' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises o the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee Page