M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

29,479/- being the surplus on account of sale of improvements having offered under the head "Income from other sources" and the same was not liable to be added while computing the capital gains. 9. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have refrained from upholding the computation of capital gains in respect of alleged transfer of property to IDEB- Rs.43

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

10(3)/56 if so, whether they were taxable under the aforesaid provisions instead of summarily rejecting it and proceeding to tax it as long term capital gain on the basis that the assessee has transferred the goodwill. He seems to have lost sight of the fact that it was the goodwill of ABB Group which was common both

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

10. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 11. Now, we take up the three appeals related to the Asst. year 2007-08 in which all three assessee being the partners of the erstwhile firm raised the sole issue that whether the capital gain accruing to the assessee on transfer of land under the joint development agreement

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

10. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 11. Now, we take up the three appeals related to the Asst. year 2007-08 in which all three assessee being the partners of the erstwhile firm raised the sole issue that whether the capital gain accruing to the assessee on transfer of land under the joint development agreement

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

gains and interest income need to be examined in the hands of beneficiaries. 18. We heard the parties and perused the record. From the record, we notice that the primary claim of the assessee is exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the Act, as per which any income of a venture capital company or venture capital fund from investment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

10 of 34\nAO. We also note that the assessee taken possession of property\nfrom developer vide letter reference VKT/LND/591 dated 8.5.2017\nwhich is placed on record at page 146 to 150 of assessee paper\nbook-I. The ld. AO not accepted the said letter of the allocation of\npossession to assessee by alleging that there could be manipulation\nbetween

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

10) of the Act was placed on record by the assessee company during the assessment proceedings and therefore, it deemed it fit to direct its reexamination by the Assessing Officer. 18.1 In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is unexceptionable and therefore, does not merit any interference." 21. He submitted that similar decisions have been rendered

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

10 of 23 136 Taxman 107 (Bom). The facts of the case before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was that by the memorandum of family settlement, dated 30-1-1997, it was agreed between the parties thereto, that the business of six firms as set out therein would be distributed in terms of the family settlement as the parties

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

29. With respect, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgment. The expression 'by any other name' appearing in item (a) of clause (iii) of section 2(14) has to be read ejusdem generis with the earlier expressions i.e., municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee

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

10 of 16 his son and the appellants had been restrained from dealing with the house in question by a judicial order and the said judicial order had been vacated only in the month of May, 2004 and therefore, the sale deed could not be executed before the said order was vacated though the agreement to sell had been executed

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. C. NARASIMHAIAH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 143(3) by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(4), Bangalore is opposed to Law and Facts and Circumstances of the case. Hence, the Assessee has come up with this appeal. 2. The moot question to be decided and answered in this appeal 4 ITA No.206(B)/12 & C.O. No.4(B)2015 - whether gains arisen is "Long

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

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

29,292/- as against Rs.5,19,220/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 Denial of exemption claimed under section 54F Rs.9,08,474/- of the Act in respect of amount of Rs.65,00,000/- invested in residential property a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer

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

29. With respect, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgment. The expression 'by any other name' appearing in item (a) of clause (iii) of section 2(14) has to be read ejusdem generis with the earlier expressions i.e., municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee

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

29,76,76,017/-.” 7. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 the cases of the assessee were assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the department treated the gain under similar facts as long term capital gain. Therefore, in view of the principle of consistency also the ld. CIT(A) allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

10 of 27 13. With regard to the legal issue that the AO ought to have assumed jurisdiction u/s.153A and not u/s.153C, the ld AR submitted that the AO in his order has admitted that there was a search in the residence of the assessee i.e., M/s.R.Muniraju (HUF) and that when the assessee is searched the assessment should have been

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

29. The sequence of events prior to slump sale of sprinkler business and ancillary transactions was as follows: Date Events 3 February 2015  Assessee set up wholly owned subsidiary, M/s. Aigua Sprinkler and Hydrant India Pvt. Ltd. (“Aigua Sprinkler”) with a paid up share capital of INR 99,990 (9,999 shares at Face Value INR 10 each)  24 April

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

capital gain on the JDA entered by the assessee with the developer. The condition laid down in section 2(47)(v) of the Act r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is not complied with as there was no willingness of the developer to perform his part of the duty in terms of the JDA. Accordingly it is held

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

29 9. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated the amendment to Sec.50C by insertion of proviso by Finance Act, 2016 is only a clarificatory and was applicable to even to the relevant assessment year and accordingly the value of balance sale consideration as on 8.4.2013 ought to have been adopted for the determination of capital gains. 10