MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

69C of the Act is unsustainable in law and the presumption under section 292 C of the Act is not applicable (substantial question of law at Para 26(iv), 27, 28 & 29 of the modified and additional substantial question of law)? 3. The Hon’ble High Court vide common order dated 12.9.2022 in ITA Nos.371/2015 c/w ITA Nos.372/2015 & 373/2015

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

69C of the Act is unsustainable in law and the presumption under section 292 C of the Act is not applicable (substantial question of law at Para 26(iv), 27, 28 & 29 of the modified and additional substantial question of law)? 2.1 The Hon’ble High Court vide common order dated 12.9.2022 in ITA Nos.371/2015 c/w ITA Nos.372/2015 & 373/2015

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

69C of the Act is unsustainable in law and the presumption under section 292 C of the Act is not applicable (substantial question of law at Para 26(iv), 27, 28 & 29 of the modified and additional substantial question of law)? 2.1 The Hon’ble High Court vide common order dated 12.9.2022 in ITA Nos.371/2015 c/w ITA Nos.372/2015 & 373/2015

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

69C of the Act is unsustainable in law and the presumption under section 292 C of the Act is not applicable (substantial question of law at Para 26(iv), 27, 28 & 29 of the modified and additional substantial question of law)? 2.1 The Hon’ble High Court vide common order dated 12.9.2022 in ITA Nos.371/2015 c/w ITA Nos.372/2015 & 373/2015

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BENGALURU

69C of the Act is\nunsustainable in law and the presumption under section 292 C of\nthe Act is not applicable (substantial question of law at Para 26(iv),\n27, 28 & 29 of the modified and additional substantial question of\nlaw)?\n3.\nThe Hon'ble High Court vide common order dated 12.9.2022 in ITA\nNos.371/2015 c/w ITA Nos.372/2015 & 373/2015

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act is\nunsustainable in law and the presumption under section 292 C of\nthe Act is not applicable (substantial question of law at Para 26(iv),\n27, 28 & 29 of the modified and additional substantial question of\nlaw)?\n3.\nThe Hon'ble High Court vide common order dated 12.9.2022 in ITA\nNos.371/2015 c/w ITA Nos.372/2015 & 373/2015

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer of properties”. 8.12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

transfer of properties”. 8.12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability