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

capital gains ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 11 of 33 of Rs.17,96,704/- (Rs.4,92,69,179 – 4,74,72,475) was added back to the income of the assessee and brought to tax. 3.6 With regard to the Notional rent on residential property owned

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

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 and raised the following grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

capital gain. He also placed reliance on some of the decisions quoted by the assessee viz., Savitri Kadur (supra) and New Kamlesh Jewellers (supra). 15. In a rebuttal to the ld. DR’s reliance on the decision in the case of Sudhakar M. Shetty (supra), the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court

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

capital gain from the sale of shares and further erred in not adjudicating on this crucial issue by holding that this is academic in nature 7.5 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making the addition, by making a frivolous observation that there is nothing on record to show that the copy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

capital gains would arise. 2. Considering hedging losses as notional or speculative and disallowed under section 37 of the Act: 2.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of hedging losses without providing any basis for the same. 2.2. The learned CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the learned AO in disallowing hedging loss, by treating

INCOME-TAX OFFICER,BANGALORE vs. SHRI. RAMAKRISHNA M.J, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A No.1326/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2010-11)

104 E.L.T.748] • State of Bihar v. S K. Raoy [AIR 1966 SC, dt.24.04.1966] 06. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Section 54F reads as under : 54F. Capital gain

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

gains, stamp duty value was to be regarded as full value of consideration Finance Act, 2018 / 2020 has inserted a third proviso to section 50C(1) which provides that stamp duty value of the capital asset transferred will be deemed to be full value of consideration only if stamp duty value exceeds 105 / 110 per cent of the consideration received

SRI. M N SHESHAGIRI,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

104 DTR 134) where in the Hon’ble Kerala High Court held as under:- “The scheme for depositing capital gain is contemplated under Section

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

104. PAN: ACWPT0308C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi {in brevity

SRI. GANGA POORNA PRASAD,MYSURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Sri Ganga Poorna Prasad, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #718, Ii Main, 1St Cross, 1St Block, Income Tax, Ramakrishnagar, Circle-2(1), Mysuru – 570 026. Mysuru. Pan : Aiqpp 5131 K Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru

section 148 of the Act, return of income was filed declaring Total Income of Rs. 1,17,59,366.00. The Total income comprised of Income from House Property, Business income and Income for Other Sources offered for taxation in the return of income originally filed earlier and Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 1,15,74,390.00. 7. After

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 271 (l)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, the penalty was to be deleted.” 5.6 This was also supported by the order of the Jaipur Bench in the case of Smt. Indira Agarwal in ITA No.1444/JP/2018 dated 22.3.2019 wherein held as under: 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The question arises whether

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

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

104/- respectively. However, the Assessee has not explained how it has been able to earn rental income from the same premise when it was undergoing major construction activity during the relevant FYs. Further in the break-up of expenditure for construction of industrial shed furnished, the Assessee has not reported any labour or sub-contract cost towards the construction

CRYSTAL ICE AND COLD STOR AGE,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALURU

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Crystal Ice & Cold Storage, Plot No. 395-A1 Industrial Area, The Income Tax Officer, Baikampady New, Mangalore, Ward-1(1), Vs. Mangaluru, Karnataka – 575011. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaefc9692E Appellant Respondent

104/- and resultant capital gain was worked Page 3 of 6 out at Rs. 10,43,865/-. The property was sold to Mr. Harry Dsouza and Theresa Dsouza for Rs. 70,00,000/- on which the TDS of Rs. 70,000/- was made. The Assessee submitted the purchase deed of the property also. 5. The Ld. Assessing Officer noted that

SRI VIJAY KUMAR ,MANIPAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Vijay Kumar, Prop: M/S. Sigma Bar, The Income-Tax Officer, “Vijayalaxmi” Alevoor Road, Vs. Ward – 3, Manipal – 576 104. Udupi. Pan: Aebpk3811J Appellant Respondent

104. Udupi. PAN: AEBPK3811J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Soumya K, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Revenue by Counsel Date of hearing : 24.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Mangaluru dated

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from

SMT.TAHERA BEGUM ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

104 DTR 134) where in the Hon’ble Kerala High Court held as under:- “The scheme for depositing capital gain is contemplated under Section

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

104 1,386 69,916 2014-15 46,243 22,176 2,339 1,380 9,418 4,512 86,06 8 2015-16 45,009 16,200 2,250 1,035 64,494 2016-17 1,51,475 36,336 2,167 630 10,299 2,03,255 Davangere: Payment to Sodexo Cash Medical Payment to Chinnu SVC India