SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

112 so the FMV will be r 107 ;the taxable amount will be (107-100) X 1000 i.e., 7000, to be taxed under income from salaries. Now assuming the shares have been held for more than 12 months, it would be considered as long term capital gains and taxed at 10 percent (Short term capital gains Page

SHANTHA ALIAS SHANTHAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

112,\nand Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt Ltd vs. CIT 395 ITR 692, the satisfaction\nnote must be specific, not mechanical, and must precede the issuance of\nnotice under section 153C of the Act. The failure to record and provide\nsuch satisfaction invalidates the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C\nof the Act.\n18. Furthermore, the Id. AR also argued that

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.

112(1) is that the aggregate of long-term capital gains to the extent it exceeds 10% of the amount of capital gains, should be before giving effect to the provisions of second proviso to Section

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.

112(1) is that the aggregate of long-term capital gains to the extent it exceeds 10% of the amount of capital gains, should be before giving effect to the provisions of second proviso to Section

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

112. Further contention of the assessee Counsel is that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Plastiblends India Ltd., 398 ITR 568 is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the following reasons:- “Firstly the said judgement deals with deduction under section 80IA which falls under Chapter VI-A and is therefore covered

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

112. Further contention of the assessee Counsel is that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Plastiblends India Ltd., 398 ITR 568 is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the following reasons:- “Firstly the said judgement deals with deduction under section 80IA which falls under Chapter VI-A and is therefore covered

SHRI VANKADARI CHINNA REDDEPPA CHETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains tax, in the impugned appeal, the very same transactions have been considered as business income. The same approach was adopted for the same property / project for AY 2011-12. This is a contradiction to the Revenue's own position in the ld. AO's order under section 143(3) of the Act. The search assessment

MR. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

112, Adarsh Palm Retreat Outer Ring Road Deputy Commissioner of Income- Bellandur Post tax Vs. Devarabeesaahalli, Circle-4(1)(1) Bangalore 560 103 Bangalore PAN NO : AIMPA7536M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This

DORAISWAMI RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2021-22

capital gain (LTCG) arising from the redemption of Market Linked Debentures (MLDs) should be taxed at the concessional rate of 10% under section 112A of the Act, or at the rate of 20% as applied by the AO under section 112

PRADIP KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(7), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

Capital Gains', invoking section 68/69A amounts to double addition on the same sum. Reliance: ACIT v. Kulwant Singh [85 taxmann.com 112

DB ENGINEERING & CONSULTING GMBH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & It(It)A No.1377/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Db Engineering & Consulting Gmbh, Dcit (International 82/4, 3Rd Floor, North Wing, Hulkul Brigade Taxation), Centre, Lavelle Road, Ward No.76, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan :Aaecd 9085 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Susan Mathew, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024

capital gains or under sections 112 or 112A being tax on long term capital gains. Tax on income chargeable to tax as per rates

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

112, Sy. No. 60/1, Whitefield Road, Mahadevapura dated 08.12.2010 in which estimated cost for conversion of power supply from industrial to commercial is reported as 1,74,023/-. The AO in the remand report has stated such expenditure are covered under the deduction claimed u/s 24 of the Act by the Assessee for the relevant financial year. The view taken

M/S. ZASH TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

gain. Further, it was\nobserved that there are four categories of capital assets enumerated\nin clauses (a), (aa), (ab) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 55 of\nthe Act. Clause (b) is a residuary provision governing “any other capital\nasset”. Here, NFAC was concerned with the capital asset falling\nwithin the scope of sub-clause (aa) and category

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

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

SOUTH KANARA AGRICULTURISTS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., ,MANGALURU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

capital gain of ₹ 278,012,470/-, and passed assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 26/2/2016. 5. Assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT–A which was disposed of ex parte as stated above. Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Before us, the assessee filed an appeal through Official liquidator. It was submitted

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

112, J.C. Road Vs. Bangalore 560 002 PAN No.AAACC6106G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri S. Ananthan, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 19.10.2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057209241(1) passed

MRS. SUREKHA L/R OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

112, Ramarao Officer, Layout, Ward – 7(2)(5), Bengaluru South, Bengaluru. Girinagar S.O., Vs. Bengaluru – 560 085. PAN: AKNPD7215R APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05-08-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain. The deeming provision under Section 50\nC (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable\nproperty may have various attributes, charges. encumbrances,\nlimitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not\ntake into consideration the attributes of the property for determining\nthe fair market value in the condition, the property is offered