M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that the assessee

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that the assessee

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the\nappeal. The appellant prays that, for the aforementioned grounds or any other grounds\nthat may be pressed at the time of hearing, the appeal of the appellant be allowed.\n2.1 Further the grounds raised by the revenue for the Asst. year\n2017-18 in ITA No.222/Bang/2024 are taken as base

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

deemed to be preference capital, notwithstanding that it is entitled to either of both of the following rights, namely:- (i) that, as respects dividends, in addition to the preferential right to the amount specified in clause (a), it has a right to participate, whether fully or to a limited extent, with capital not entitled to the preferential right aforesaid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

deemed to be preference capital, notwithstanding that it is entitled to either of both of the following rights, namely:- (i) that, as respects dividends, in addition to the preferential right to the amount specified in clause (a), it has a right to participate, whether fully or to a limited extent, with capital not entitled to the preferential right aforesaid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessmentYear: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nPAN NO: AAACC6106G\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessmentYear: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAssessme

deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the\nappeal. The appellant prays that, for the aforementioned grounds or any other grounds\nthat may be pressed at the time of hearing, the appeal of the appellant be allowed.\n2.1 Further the grounds raised by the revenue for the Asst. year\n2017-18 in ITA No.222/Bang/2024 are taken as base

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

dividend, which by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be an expenditure to attract the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, the first substantial question of law framed by this court is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. Learned counsel

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

capital expenditure and it is only a revenue expenditure. Further, in the following decision it was held that study undertaken in IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 Page 26 of 110 relation to an existing business is revenue in nature. [CIT v. Manganese Ore India Ltd [2016] 67 Taxmann.com 268 (Bombay), ITO v. Dodsal Mfg P Ltd [1984] 19 Taxman 27 (Ahmedabad

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

capital gains on sale of shares and income from other\nsources being interest and dividend income. The AO observed that\nduring the year under consideration, the assessee was in receipt of\ntotal income exceeding Rs.50 lakhs in view of which it was\nmandatory to disclose the assets and liabilities as per schedule AL\nin the return of income. However

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital) as also avoiding incidence of Dividend ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century Sheltors, Bangalore & ITA Nos.1100 to 1102/Bang/2022 Century Silicon City, Bangalore Page 9 of 26 Distribution Tax (DDT) in the hands of the company (in respect of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)). 3.4 The ld. CIT(A) observed that the distinction between legitimate tax planning

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital) as also avoiding incidence of Dividend ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century Sheltors, Bangalore & ITA Nos.1100 to 1102/Bang/2022 Century Silicon City, Bangalore Page 9 of 26 Distribution Tax (DDT) in the hands of the company (in respect of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)). 3.4 The ld. CIT(A) observed that the distinction between legitimate tax planning

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital) as also avoiding incidence of Dividend ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century Sheltors, Bangalore & ITA Nos.1100 to 1102/Bang/2022 Century Silicon City, Bangalore Page 9 of 26 Distribution Tax (DDT) in the hands of the company (in respect of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)). 3.4 The ld. CIT(A) observed that the distinction between legitimate tax planning

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital) as also avoiding incidence of Dividend ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century Sheltors, Bangalore & ITA Nos.1100 to 1102/Bang/2022 Century Silicon City, Bangalore Page 9 of 26 Distribution Tax (DDT) in the hands of the company (in respect of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)). 3.4 The ld. CIT(A) observed that the distinction between legitimate tax planning

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital) as also avoiding incidence of Dividend ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century Sheltors, Bangalore & ITA Nos.1100 to 1102/Bang/2022 Century Silicon City, Bangalore Page 9 of 26 Distribution Tax (DDT) in the hands of the company (in respect of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)). 3.4 The ld. CIT(A) observed that the distinction between legitimate tax planning

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital) as also avoiding incidence of Dividend ITA Nos.1073 to 1075/Bang/2022 Century Sheltors, Bangalore & ITA Nos.1100 to 1102/Bang/2022 Century Silicon City, Bangalore Page 9 of 26 Distribution Tax (DDT) in the hands of the company (in respect of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)). 3.4 The ld. CIT(A) observed that the distinction between legitimate tax planning

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

gain of Rs.10,17,445/-. Page 5 4. The assessing officer further noted from the financial statements that the assessee has made payments which are capable of generating income which are exempt from tax and has received dividend of Rs.2,60,00,000/- from GE BE Pvt. Ltd. which was claimed as exempt income

RAHUL AGARWAL ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

deemed the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The assessee in the current year has claimed an income as dividend which is falsely attributed by camouflaging the actual returns, subsequently the assessee has claimed short term capital loss which has been set off against the capital gains