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

115 taxmann.com 5/275 Taxman 187/421 ITR 46 (SC) while considering the provision of section 53 of the TP Act in the context of capital gains

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

115 Taxpayers PLI PLI=OP/OC 12.70% 35th Percentile Margin of comaparable set 18.50% Adjustment Required (if PLI< 35th Yes Percentile) Median Margin of comparable set M 25.64% Arm's Length Price ALP=(1+M)*OC 45,03,13,802 Price Received OR 40,39,51,067 Shortfall being adjustment ALP-OR 4,63,62,735 22.4.2 The above shortfall

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

gain. The assessee’s case is clearly distinguishable since the revalued amount is not accounted in the books of accounts. Most of the judgments relied by the Ld AR do not appl to the facts of in assessee’s case because either they are rendered prior to 01/04/1989, or, goodwill on revaluation is credited to the capital account

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

115 JB although no material was found specific to such addition. The Court held that under Section 153A "the additions need not be restricted or limited to the incriminating material, which was found during the course of search." Consequently even if no incriminating material was ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 13 of 78 found for the addition under Section 115JB

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

115 JB although no material was found specific to such addition. The Court held that under Section 153A "the additions need not be restricted or limited to the incriminating material, which was found during the course of search." Consequently even if no incriminating material was ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 13 of 78 found for the addition under Section 115JB

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

Capital Gains' as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anarkali Sarabai (supra) and Karthikeya Sarabai (supra) and is not exempt ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 22 of 31 from tax. Further the investment in preference shares is to be regarded as an investment in an unlisted and unquoted security and is therefore definitely exigible

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

Capital Gains' as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anarkali Sarabai (supra) and Karthikeya Sarabai (supra) and is not exempt ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 22 of 31 from tax. Further the investment in preference shares is to be regarded as an investment in an unlisted and unquoted security and is therefore definitely exigible

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

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

SHRI. K V SATISH BABU [HUF],MYSURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2[1], MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

gain. Sec.2(47) of the Act defines "Transfer" for the purpose of the Act. It reads thus: 'Sec.2 (47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein ; or (iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law ; or (iv) in a case where

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 115(O) of the Act. The brief facts leading to the controversy are that 99.99% of the shares of the assessee are held by M/s. FIS Holding Muritian Ltd. which is incorporated in Mauritius. During the year under consideration, the assessee has bought back its own shares from its holding company to the extent of 2933 shares

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

115. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Before proceeding further it may be gainful here to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vjay Industries (supra) which read as under :- “JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. - Leave granted. Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that

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

115. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Before proceeding further it may be gainful here to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vjay Industries (supra) which read as under :- “ JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. - Leave granted. Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that

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

115. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Before proceeding further it may be gainful here to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vjay Industries (supra) which read as under :- “ JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. - Leave granted. Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that

SMT. P.HAMSAVENI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Capital Gains (‘LTCG’) arising from Sale Agreement dt.11.9.2006. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals) inter alia raised the issue of validity of reopening and reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, however, the CIT (Appeals) rejected the grounds raised by the assessee. 3. Before us, common grounds have been raised