SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3, SHIVAMOGGA

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri A.K.Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Lakshmamma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Purdal Road, Ward-3, Gadikoppa, Shivamogga-577 201 Shivamogga-577 205 Pan No: Akkpl 6281 A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : K.R.Narayana, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.3.2019 Of The Cit(Appeals), Davangere, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Facts & Circumstances Under Which This Appeal Arise For 2. Consideration Are That The Assessee Owned Agricultural Lands Measuring 6.8 Acres In Malligenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk Which Was Compulsorily Acquired By The Special Land Acquisition Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Slao”], Under The Provisions Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Vide Notification Dated 22.9.2000. Aggrieved By The Award As Originally Passed Awarding Compensation For The Land Acquired By The Govt., Page 2 Of 12

section 57(iv) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act were not applicable for interest on enhanced compensation as interest was in the nature of enhanced compensation and not interest. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the CIT(Appeals), the Assessee 11. has preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival submissions

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), DHARWAD vs. SHRI VINAYAK HARI PALLED , HUBBALLI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodia

section 57(iv) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act were not applicable for interest on enhanced compensation as such interest was in the nature of enhanced compensation and not interest. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the CIT(Appeals), the revenue has preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival

M/S. GMR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2310/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Dy.Commissioner Of (Successor To Gmr Holdings P.Ltd) Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(2) V. Bangalore. No.25/1 Skip House, Museum Rd. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccr1554R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Yogesh Thar, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per Bench:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 14.10.20199 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds & Various Sub Grounds. The Assessee By Its Application Dated 13.07.2020 Has Also Raised An Additional Ground. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted That Grounds No.Ii & Iii May Be Adjudicated & The Other Grounds May Be Left Open. Therefore, Grounds No.Ii & Iii Are Reproduced Below:-

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules the Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to adopt a different method than the one adopted by the assessee, and if 10 IT(TP)A No.2310/Bang/2019. M/s GMR Enterprises Private Limited. for any reason the AO has any doubt recording such valuation report and does

SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

TDS) & Another 388 ITR 343 (Guj) where the Hon'ble High Court has specified that interest under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not interest referred to Section 56

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

56 respect to the TDS demands under section 201 of the Act; with respect to the taxability of the very

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

56 respect to the TDS demands under section 201 of the Act; with respect to the taxability of the very

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

56 respect to the TDS demands under section 201 of the Act; with respect to the taxability of the very

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

56 respect to the TDS demands under section 201 of the Act; with respect to the taxability of the very

INDIRA RAMAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

TDS Statement – 155.65 During the year the assessee jointly Payment of purchased an immoveable property, at consideration for Tower 6 Apt #154 of the residential purchase of complex 'Pebble Bay', along with the Mr immovable Srinivasan Mahesh (IT PA No property (Section AOEPM3625M), No.44, Main Road 194IA) Raysandra Village, Aneshwara Devanahalli , Bangalore 560017 for a total consideration Rs.3

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

56. In assessee’s case details of the invoices along with the corresponding FIRCs mapping are furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities to substantiate that the export proceeds are received by the assessee (pages 958-977 of the paper book). We also notice that the AO has denied the deduction, based on the findings

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

TDS return by the concerned Bank and for no default of the appellant and hence, ought to have refrained from confirming the said addition of Rs.22,79,226. (5) The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. (6) Without prejudice the disallowance as confirmed bythe learned CIT(Appeals) are arbitrary excessive

SMT. ZEELIA ZEENA MAYZEAN SHENOY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

TDS return by the concerned Bank and for no default of the appellant and hence, ought to have refrained from confirming the said addition of Rs.22,79,226. (5) The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. (6) Without prejudice the disallowance as confirmed bythe learned CIT(Appeals) are arbitrary excessive

M/S. WATERLINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act only in situations where the shares are issued at a premium and at a value higher than the fair market value. The fair market value contemplated in the provisions above is as under: - “(a) The fair market value of the shares shall be the value: (i) as may be determined in accordance with

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

TDS under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the 1st proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with 1st proviso to section 40(a)(i). 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, software expenses of Rs. 30,23,602 and Rs. 14,65,417 respectively [totaling

M/S. MANGALORE ROUND TABLE TRUST,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained in section 142A shall apply in respect of an assessment made on or before the 30th day of September

M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

56 is required to be made. Because the law was retrospective in its operation, the legislature wanted to safeguard concluded assessments being reopened and therefore by proviso to Sec.142A(3) of the Act, it was Provided that nothing contained in section 142A shall apply in respect of an assessment made on or before the 30th day of September

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS on interest payments made to its members/deposit holders. Thus the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs.1,68,68,976/- is not warranted and therefore the same was deleted. iii) Further, as far as payments made on Audit fee of Rs.50,000/- and commission payment of Rs.5,12,299/-, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

M/S KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

56 (2). Learned CIT (A) has confirmed this addition as per Para 51 & 52 of his order on the same logic without taking note of these two valuation reports. As per the certificate given in the paper book, both these valuation reports were furnished before both the authorities i.e. the AO as well as CIT (A). None of them