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

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

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

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

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

Short 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

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

Short 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

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

Short 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

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

Short 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

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

Capit 7.3. al asset, plots were sold in less than 36 month from the date of allotment by assessee. Thus in our considered opinion, authorities below are right in treating the gain from Transaction 2 to be short term. However, transaction No.1, being exchange of land for three plots would result in LTCG. Cost of acquisition of land purchased

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

short term capital gain, the AO without prejudice to the above stand also examined the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. As far as deduction u/s 54F of the Act is concerned, the facts are that the assessee purchased the property in his name and in the name of his wife. The assessee owned

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

short term capital gain. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee submitted detailed written submissions along with the documentary evidence in support of his submissions and filed evidences. However, the learned CIT(A) did not accept the evidence filed by the assessee and applied Rule 46A observing that

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

term capital loss claimed against short\nterm capital gain by the assessee.\n9.\nWe have heard the rival submissions and perused the\nmaterials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the case of\nthe assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS by\nissuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 4.7.2017 which are\nreproduced below

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

term capital loss claimed against short\nterm capital gain by the assessee.\n9.\nWe have heard the rival submissions and perused the\nmaterials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the case of\nthe assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS by\nissuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 4.7.2017 which are\nreproduced below

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

TDS made by OMR Investments to be the sale consideration at Rs.1,61,92,000/- paid to assessee for another business of land agreed to sold under agreement to sell dated 2.4.2014. Thus, he submitted that the AO has considered the land transferred in the assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.18,54,25,000/- as per amount reflected in form

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

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

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

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

SOMCHAND GIRIRAJ GUPTA ,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 & TPS , VIJAYAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Somchand Giriraj Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, Mukund Nagar, Ward 1 & Tps, Station Road, Vijayapur. Vijayapura. Vs. Pan: Abtpg6461F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27-08-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillai

short term capital gain as assessee failed to furnish necessary documents, sales/purchase deeds, cost of acquisition, date of acquisition, and nature of transaction in support of the claim. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. ACIT (A). The Ld.CIT(A) called for remand report in respect of the issues alleged by assessee