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

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 in relation

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.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

3 of 15 admission of the same. We have gone through the additional evidence and admit the same for the purpose of adjudication. 6. The assessee submitted that the assessee entered into agreement for of sale of property on 3.6.2013 under which the property was agreed to be sold by the assessee for a consideration of Rs.48 lakhs

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A,\nclause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section\n23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34,4A,, section 35 and\nsection 37 of the Wealth-tax Act. 1957 (27 of 1957). shall, with\nnecessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they\napply

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

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

3)\nReliance was also placed by the appellant on the decision of the Hon'ble\nKarnataka High Court in the case of Shankar Vittal Motor Company in ITA\n653/2016 dated 01/12/2021 [copy placed at pages 110 to 133 of the Paper\nbook in ITA 955/Bang/2024 ] as well as the decision of the jurisdictional\nHigh Court in the case

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

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

transferred the land to the developers for a consideration of ₹ 8 crores as initial non- refundable deposit and 30% share in the built-up area to be constructed. The assessee has not disclosed the joint development agreement while filing the return of income for the reason that it has been challenged by some of the members of the society before

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

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

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

50C are applicable only for the purpose of capital gains. The said provisions postulate a deemed full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset. 12 Therefore for the purpose of computation of Capital Gains irrespective of the actual consideration received or accruing on transfer of the capital asset being land or building

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