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 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2016 by insertion of proviso clarifies and fortifies the contentions of the Appellant. The relevant portion of the law is reproduced below:- Provided that

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

2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply

MRS SHANTHAMMA MARGAMAPPA ,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

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Shanthamma Margamappa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.203, Agara Village, Ward - 4(3)(4), H S R Layout Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 102. Pan : Atmpm 5572 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Lakshmi K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019

price of the property sold. Section 50C(1) provides that, "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

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 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

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. 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

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 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

BENEDICTA MARY MENDONCE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-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