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

long term capital gain as short term 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

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

TDS was made on it. Regarding the submissions on recomputation of Capital gains and set off of brought forward business losses, the AO assessed capital gains on sale of land and buildings as Short Term Capital Gains and did not set off the brought forward business losses. No reasons were assigned by the AO for doing so. Page

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

long term capital gain. Our attention was drawn to the following extracts of the judgement: As held by the Tribunal at the relevant time there was no power vested in the authorities under the Act to substitute a full value of consideration received for sale of shares by fair market value in respect of stocks a nd shares. The power

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

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

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

long-term capital asset would not be chargeable to capital gains tax, if the same were utilized for purchase of an housing accommodation within a year before or after the date on which the transfer of an capital asset took place or was used for construction of a residential house within a period of three years from the date

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

Long Term Capital Gains and the associated deductions U/s 54 may please be allowed by the Honourable ITAT (Bangalore( 8. Ground relating to principle of natural justice The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in not granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant even though the Appellant

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

Term Capital Loss of Rs 42,896,900 in respect of the sale of shares of M/s BBNL without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and without confronting the information submitted by the appellant. 12. “The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw or rescind all or any of the GROUND OF APPEAL on or before

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

Term Capital Loss of Rs 42,896,900 in respect of the sale of shares of M/s BBNL without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and without confronting the information submitted by the appellant. 12. “The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw or rescind all or any of the GROUND OF APPEAL on or before

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

Term Capital Loss of Rs 42,896,900 in respect of the sale of shares of M/s BBNL without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and without confronting the information submitted by the appellant. 12. “The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw or rescind all or any of the GROUND OF APPEAL on or before

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

Term Capital Loss of Rs 42,896,900 in respect of the sale of shares of M/s BBNL without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and without confronting the information submitted by the appellant. 12. “The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw or rescind all or any of the GROUND OF APPEAL on or before

SRI. H.R. DIWAKA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

Long term) arising from sale of property, it is date of allotment of property which is relevant for purpose of computing holding period. 7.2. There is no quarrel by revenue in respect of mutual exchange of plots between assessee and M/s.Reliable Silveroak. Subsequently, assessee sold plots vide, sale deed dated 03/09/2009, 20/10/2009 and 06/07/2009, which was allotted vide General Power

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

long term capital gain from the sale of 6 acres and 25.10 guntas of land at Pujanahalli, Devanahalli village, Bengaluru District disregarding the fact that proportionate sale value received there for is only Rs.18,54,25,000/-. 5.1 Facts of the case are that the assessee has taken the sale consideration of 7 acres 16.68 guntas for consideration of Rs.18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

long term capital asset being bonds or debentures other than capital indexed bonds issued by the Government. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the principal characteristic of a bond is a fixed holding period and a fixed rate of return. According to him, the four percent non-cumulative redeemable preference shares which the assessee redeemed also

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

long term capital asset being bonds or debentures other than capital indexed bonds issued by the Government. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the principal characteristic of a bond is a fixed holding period and a fixed rate of return. According to him, the four percent non-cumulative redeemable preference shares which the assessee redeemed also

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOWORTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

TDS is not sufficient for proving the payment is genuine payment for services rendered. Further in respect of ground No.3, he submitted that the assessee was unable to prove the FMV determined at Rs.10/- and Rs.130/- with the supporting documents for substantiating the case in the case of unquoted equity shares, if the market value of unquoted equity shares

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 at Rs.39

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

long term capital gain in the following manner:\n\nRs.6,82,65,677/-\nSale Consideration\nLess:\n\nITA No.1926/Bang/2024\n& 299/Bang/2025\nPage 13 of 20\n\nSelling Expenses\nIndexed cost of acquisition on Rs.1,75,45,594/-\nIndex cost of improvement on Rs.1,65,20,020/-\nLong term capital gain\n\nRs.\n5,00,000/-\nRs.2,71,30,392/-\nRs.1