DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains in accordance with section 70 of the Act. Consequently, the computation of gross total income as returned by the assessee was in accordance with law. Once the gross total income is restored to the figure declared in the return, the deduction under section 80G of the Act must also be computed with reference to such income. The restriction applied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

capital gain. AR of the assessee also pointed out that in respect of the issue of rental income from plant and machinery, assessed by AO under the head IOS, the payee has wrongly mentioned that the TDS

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains (LTCG) for AY 2019-20. The CPC disallowed this set-off, affecting the deduction under Section 80G. For AY 2021-22, the assessee claimed TDS

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

capital loss on sale of shares as claimed by the Assessee and hold that the transaction of sale of shares deserves to be ignored and no loss can be determined nor can any short term gain be taxed. Thus the grounds relating to short term loss/gain on sale of shares are treated as partly allowed. 54. Ground No.23

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

capital loss on sale of painting. Page 30 of 31 32. The last issue is with regard to the credit for TDS gain

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

capital gains arising out of the transfer of the said property; which is 5,73,75,000. His share of it, is about k3,48,75,000. x. The assessee contends that since the deemed transfer of schedule A property has taken place on 08.04.2013, the revision of guideline values effected on 12.08.2013 by the State Government resulted in guideline

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

capital gains received on sale of BPL Cellular company shares. 4. The Profit and Loss account declared by the assessee company is as under : EPSILON ADVISERS PRIVATE LIMITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 5 of 26 31STMARCH 2006 31-03-2006 31-03-2005 Rs. Rs. INCOME - Profit on sale

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

capital gains received on sale of BPL Cellular company shares. 4. The Profit and Loss account declared by the assessee company is as under : EPSILON ADVISERS PRIVATE LIMITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 5 of 26 31STMARCH 2006 31-03-2006 31-03-2005 Rs. Rs. INCOME - Profit on sale

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

capital gains received on sale of BPL Cellular company shares. 4. The Profit and Loss account declared by the assessee company is as under : EPSILON ADVISERS PRIVATE LIMITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 5 of 26 31STMARCH 2006 31-03-2006 31-03-2005 Rs. Rs. INCOME - Profit on sale

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

capital gains received on sale of BPL Cellular company shares. 4. The Profit and Loss account declared by the assessee company is as under : EPSILON ADVISERS PRIVATE LIMITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 5 of 26 31STMARCH 2006 31-03-2006 31-03-2005 Rs. Rs. INCOME - Profit on sale

SHRI GURAPPA P GAWALI ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran(Smc) Ita No.647(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2002-03) Shri Late Gurappa P Gawali Rep. By Legal Heir Gurappa Parasappa Gawali, Shahapur Gate, Gawali Galli, Bijapur-586 101. Pan No.Aadhg8984N Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bijapur-586101 Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel To Deptt. Date Of Hearing : 06-11-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : O R D E R Per Shri B.R.Baskaran,Am

gains as nil, after claiming deduction u/s 54B of the IT Act. It can be noticed that the assessee-HUF, in two occasions, i.e., in the original return and in revised return of income, has conscious declared the capital in its hands. Accordingly, there is merit in the submission of Ld D.R that the assessee has taken a conscious decision

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

capital gains as returned by the Appellant. They failed to prove their contention with material evidence to that effect. Hence the addition of Page 2 of 15 Rs.12,54,98,299 made as revenue profits deserves to be deleted. 3. The Learned Authorities Below have erred in restricting the credit to be given to TDS

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

Capital Gain” and the buyer has deducted TDS on the purchase of the property. Buyer has also furnished information as sought

S. SHANKARANARAYAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri S.Shankaranarayan, No.708, 6Th B Cross, 3Rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034. … Appellant Pan: Aasps7994R Vs Income-Tax Officer (Tds) Ward 16(2), Bangalore. … Respondent

TDS) Ward 16(2), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by: Shri Chavali Narayan. Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 27/08/2015. Date of pronouncement: 23/09/2015. O R D E R Per VIJAY PAL RAO, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28/01/2014 of the CIT(A)-LTU, Bangalore, for the assessment year

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain for the assessment year 2014-15. According to the A.O., the sale consideration for 7 acres and 12.10 guntas land was Rs.30,94,87,500/-. To come to this conclusion, he relied on the absolute sale deed document bearing No.3570/2014-15 & 3569/2014-15 dated 20.8.2014. The document No.3570/2014-15 is referring to the agreement to sale dated

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

capital gain and thefore the machinery provisions fail and therefore the charge itself fails. 23. Consequently, the relevant grounds of appeal 2 to 3 of the assessee are dismissed. 24. Ground Nos.4 and 5 can be decided together as they arise under identical facts and circumstances. We have already seen that assessee received a sum of Rs.2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain income as per Section 50C of the Act. However,\nassessee did not make any submission against show cause notice issued. It\nwas verified from the return of income filed by the assessee that sale\nconsideration declared by the assessee was only Rs.58 lakhs. Accordingly\nassessee opted claiming indexation cost has declared LTCG of Rs.2,67,705/-.\nHowever TDS

M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), BANGLAOORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

Capital Gains' as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anarkali Sarabai (supra) and Karthikeya Sarabai (supra) and is not exempt ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 22 of 31 from tax. Further the investment in preference shares is to be regarded as an investment in an unlisted and unquoted security and is therefore definitely exigible