SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

gains which arose on the sale of the said lands was wrongly offered in the original return in as much as the same was exempt from tax being agricultural lands and hence excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' as per the provisions of s. 2 (14)(iii) of the Act. 7.2.1. The prime issues for consideration before

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRUE NORTH FUND IIIA , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

III Mauritius Ltd”. Before the AO, the assessee claimed that it is eligible for exemption u/s 10(23FB) of ITA No.486 /Bang/2019 CO No.50/Bang/2019 Page 6 of 46 the Act in respect of income from investments made in a venture capital undertaking. 5. The AO has made two additions, viz., the capital gains earned by the assessee and notional interest

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

III) With regard to determination of notional rent by the AO in respect of two villas,the ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee had although entered into certain agreement for sale but no sale deeds were materialized during the year. The ld.CIT(A) by relying on the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT held that taxing statues

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

III) With regard to determination of notional rent by the AO in respect of two villas,the ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee had although entered into certain agreement for sale but no sale deeds were materialized during the year. The ld.CIT(A) by relying on the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT held that taxing statues

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

iii) claim of assessee for set off of unabsorbed depreciation u/s. 32(2) r.w.s. 71 of the Act. 6. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of wrist watch straps. The assessee took land at Plot No. 45, Part SF 646 PT, 647 PT, 648 PT 650 PT, SIPCOT Complex 1, Hosur- 635126 from State Industries

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

gains which arose on the sale of the said lands was wrongly offered in the original return in as much as the same was exempt from tax being agricultural lands and hence excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' as per the provisions of s. 2 (14)(iii) of the Act. Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore Page

SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or (iv) in a case where the asset is converted by the owner thereof into, or is treated by him as, stock-in-trade of a business carried on by him, such conversion or treatment; (v) any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

25 of 79 whether held on investment portfolio or as stock-in-trade, is pacifically assessable, under section 56(2)(i), as "Income from other sources". Although the shares are held on the investment portfolio as an integral part of the business, the interest on such borrowings is allowable under section 36(1)(iii). Thus, the qualifying factor to ascertain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

III) admitting an income of Rs.5,29,40,890/-. The details of income offered under capital gains are as under : Particulars Cost Indexed Cost Amount Sale Value of Land 23,05,21,200 Page 10 of 21 ITA No.1181/Bang/2025 Particulars Cost Indexed Cost Amount Less : Indexed cost of Acquisition 8,45,28,050 13,87,62,810 Cost of Improvement

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

10 of 17 16. On a plain reading of Section 54W of the said Act, the transfer of a long term asset, which would include a residential house, would be chargeable to income tax as a capital gain, except in circumstances specified in the said section. 17. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question

PRADEEP KAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Geoergeassessment Year : 2006-07

III, Bangalore inter alia on various grounds, which are as under:- 1. That the order of the authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity, without jurisdiction, bad in law and all other known principles of law. Page 2 of 16 2. That the total income and total

SHIVAKUMAR KHENY (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

25 taxmann.com 300 (Mum) wherein it was held if capital gain is utilized for acquisition of leasehold rights in property then deduction u/s.54 of the Act is available. The CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee was not the owner of the land or building and therefore assessee was not entitled to deduction

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

10. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, since the facts are same, we are inclined to hold that framing of assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act is invalid. 11. The other ground raised by the assessee is with regard to treatment of the gain arising out of sale of land as capital gain against

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

10. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, since the facts are same, we are inclined to hold that framing of assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act is invalid. 11. The other ground raised by the assessee is with regard to treatment of the gain arising out of sale of land as capital gain against

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

10. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, since the facts are same, we are inclined to hold that framing of assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act is invalid. 11. The other ground raised by the assessee is with regard to treatment of the gain arising out of sale of land as capital gain against

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

10. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, since the facts are same, we are inclined to hold that framing of assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act is invalid. 11. The other ground raised by the assessee is with regard to treatment of the gain arising out of sale of land as capital gain against

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

10. Chapters I and III of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (hereafter the “TPG”) contain extensive guidance on comparability analyses for transfer pricing purposes. Guidance on comparability adjustments is found in paragraphs 3.47-3.54 and in the Annex to Chapter III of the TPG. A revised version of this guidance was approved

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

iii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 are not being carried out in :accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to -which such 'university, college or other institution was approved, he may, after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed withdrawal to the concerned university, college or other institution, recommend to the Central Government