M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

deemed dividend and same has to be taxed under the head ‘Capital Gains’. In this regard, we first take note

M/S ASSETZ INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds 3

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2014-15

gain anything by postponing the taxability of deemed dividend. Further, the Learned CIT(A) has observed that the Cochin bench did not consider Explanation 2 to sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. We have already noticed that the Ahmedabad bench of the Tribunal has explained about the area of operation of Explanation

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend of Rs.13,47,615/-. A notice u/s Page 7 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 148 of the Act dt.31.03.2018 was issued to the appellant. The assessee filed a letter on 07.05.2018 stating that the original return of income filed on 20.01.2014 may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 and also requested for reasons

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend of Rs.13,47,615/-. A notice u/s Page 7 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 148 of the Act dt.31.03.2018 was issued to the appellant. The assessee filed a letter on 07.05.2018 stating that the original return of income filed on 20.01.2014 may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 and also requested for reasons

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividend of Rs.13,47,615/-. A notice u/s Page 7 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 148 of the Act dt.31.03.2018 was issued to the appellant. The assessee filed a letter on 07.05.2018 stating that the original return of income filed on 20.01.2014 may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 and also requested for reasons

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

deems necessary to pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justified including order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing the fresh assessment. As per section 263 of the Act, Ld. PCIT/CIT can exercise such powers when the following factors exceed:- 1. There should be a proceeding under the Act; 2. No such

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

deems necessary to pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justified including order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing the fresh assessment. As per section 263 of the Act, Ld. PCIT/CIT can exercise such powers when the following factors exceed:- 1. There should be a proceeding under the Act; 2. No such

M/S. DEVANAM CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

capital gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression "accumulated profits" in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividends. 6.18 A conjoint reading of para 10 and 11 of AS-9 gives us following 3 conditions for revenue recognition from sale of goods: a. it is not unreasonable to expect ultimate collection b. 1) The property in the goods is transferred to the buyer or 2) All significant risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividends. 6.18 A conjoint reading of para 10 and 11 of AS-9 gives us following 3 conditions for revenue recognition from sale of goods: a. it is not unreasonable to expect ultimate collection b. 1) The property in the goods is transferred to the buyer or 2) All significant risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

dividends. 6.18 A conjoint reading of para 10 and 11 of AS-9 gives us following 3 conditions for revenue recognition from sale of goods: a. it is not unreasonable to expect ultimate collection b. 1) The property in the goods is transferred to the buyer or 2) All significant risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

deemed to have always Page 8 of 31 included any rights in or in relation to an Indian company, including rights of management or control or any other rights whatsoever. For the purpose of Sec.45 of the Act, Sec.2(47) of the Act defines “Transfer” in relation to a capital asset to include (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment

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

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

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

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

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

deemed full value of the consideration for the purpose of sec 48 will be regarded as nil and on that basis the income chargeable under the head capital gains has to be computed u/s 48. Page 9 of 19 The Sentiments emerging from the aforesaid observations of High Court is applicable to the assessee to conclude that even

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

capital had to be injected by the investors. The investors are stated to have imposed certain conditions in the agreement, which were clarified in another agreement dated 24/12/2005 between the promoters and M/s GIPL. As per this, M/s GIPL had to dissociate itself towards improving its financial health, stability and free itself from any liabilities and commitments that might expose

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

capital had to be injected by the investors. The investors are stated to have imposed certain conditions in the agreement, which were clarified in another agreement dated 24/12/2005 between the promoters and M/s GIPL. As per this, M/s GIPL had to dissociate itself towards improving its financial health, stability and free itself from any liabilities and commitments that might expose

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

dividend income of Rs.8,57,655 and respectfully following the decision of the coordinate 14 M/s.United Breweries Limited. Bench of the Tribunal,(supra), we hold that the disallowance should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. We direct accordingly.” 7.5 In view of the above order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case