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

2)(a) of . ITA No.330,331,496,543 &544/Bang/2024 S.A No.25/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 46 the Act applies viz., where the parties to the transaction are related. Following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the AO was not right in proceeding to ignore the books results of the Assessee and resorting to a process of estimating total income

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

2)(a) of\nthe Act applies viz., where the parties to the transaction are related. Following\nthe aforesaid decisions, we hold that the AO was not right in proceeding to\nignore the books results of the Assessee and resorting to a process of\nestimating total income of the Assessee in the manner in which he did. We find\nforce

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

2)(a) of\nthe Act applies viz., where the parties to the transaction are related. Following\nthe aforesaid decisions, we hold that the AO was not right in proceeding to\nignore the books results of the Assessee and resorting to a process of\nestimating total income of the Assessee in the manner in which he did. We find\nforce

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

2)(a) of\n\nthe Act applies viz., where the parties to the transaction are related. Following\nthe aforesaid decisions, we hold that the AO was not right in proceeding to\nignore the books results of the Assessee and resorting to a process of\nestimating total income of the Assessee in the manner in which he did. We find\nforce

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

2)(a) of\n\nthe Act applies viz., where the parties to the transaction are related. Following\nthe aforesaid decisions, we hold that the AO was not right in proceeding to\nignore the books results of the Assessee and resorting to a process of\nestimating total income of the Assessee in the manner in which he did. We find\nforce

SRI SIMHADRI KRISHNAMURTHY,SINDHANOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , RAICHUR

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

2) of section 50C provides that, where any reference is made to a district Valuation Officer by Ld.AO, value so determined by Valuation Officer is must be considered. It is noticed that the value taken by assessee was at Rs.8,00,000/- and value determined by ITA No.963(B)/2017 9 DVO was Rs.9,60,500/-. Under such circumstances

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

section 50C as per the Act. Needless to say the assessee should get reasonable opportunity of hearing in set aside proceeding. Accordingly, Ground no. 2 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Ground no. 3 – Addition of LTCG for sale of land and building amounting to Rs.97,77,387/-. 7.1 Facts of the case are that as per Sale Deed

SHRI BHARATH KUMAR HUKAMCHAND RATHI ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member Assessmentyear:2014-15

section 50C(2) of the Act. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the A.O. may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 5. The next issue relates to addition of Rs.4.01 lakhs, being difference between gross receipts declared by the assessee and that was shown in form 26AS. 6. We heard Ld. D.R. on this issue

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

50C 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. 11. The ld. Sr. Advocate, Shri Ajay Vohra, submitted a copy of the decision of the coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2017- 18 in ITA No.1115 & 1141/Bang/2022 dated 9.3.2023 at 150 taxmann.com 272. He submitted that the coordinate Bench has held that ESOP scheme cross-charge expenses would be allowable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. 11. The ld. Sr. Advocate, Shri Ajay Vohra, submitted a copy of the decision of the coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2017- 18 in ITA No.1115 & 1141/Bang/2022 dated 9.3.2023 at 150 taxmann.com 272. He submitted that the coordinate Bench has held that ESOP scheme cross-charge expenses would be allowable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

TDS credit.\nThis discrepancy was evident from a mismatch between the figures of\nreceipts reported in Form 26AS and those declared in the financial\nstatements. Contract receipts were revised multiple times without\nsufficient justification. For example, in AY 2017-18, receipts were initially\ndeclared as 4.86 crore, later revised to ₹17.92 crore, and ultimately\nreported as ₹4.93 crore. Additionally

PRASANNA KUMAR,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.229/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year:2018-19) Shri Prasanna Kumar Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 4-3-298/12, Palemar International Taxation Vs. Bejai Church, Cross Road Circle - 2(2), Bangalore Mangalore 575004 Pan –Bfapk0601P Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

TDS was deducted from the sale consideration of land sold by the assessee to a person named M/s. Ahbideed Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had declared long term capital loss on sale of land 2 IT(IT)A No. 229/Bang/2022 Shri Prasanna Kumar mentioned above. The AO examined the details of computation of long term capital gain

VINAY KONCHADY SHENOY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The assessee is an individual resident and working in a private company as a salary employee. The assessee filed his return of income for the year on 31.12.2019 u/s 139(4) within due date allowed. The total income declared was Rs.33,16,700/- after claiming deduction under chapter

M/S TRIAD RESORTS AND HOTELS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita No.791-793/Bang/2014 (Asst. Year – 2008-09) 1) M/S Triad Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Ita No.791) 2) M/S Noorani Properties Pvt. Ltd., (Ita No.792) 3)M/S Verde Developers Pvt. Ltd., (Ita No.793) ‘Aparanta’ No.2208, Hal Iii Stage, 80 Ft Road, Kodihalli, Bangalore-560 008. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Bangalore. . Respondent

50C. Thus, the assessee has raised the following grounds before us. ITA No.791-793/B/14 4 1) The order of the learned CIT(A), is so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is against law, weight evidence and probabilities of the case. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of partial cost of acquisition