SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

115 taxmann.com 5\n(SC)] while considering the provision of Section 53 of the\nTP Act in the context of capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 32-\nA of the Registration Act have been complied with.\n(iii) The Registering Officer is obliged legally to reject and to\nrefuse to register a deed of cancellation of a sale\nunilaterally executed without the knowledge and consent of\nother parties to the sale deed and without complying with\nsec.32A of the Registration Act.\"\n5.5 The appellant also

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

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

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

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

gains of\nRs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had been claimed u/s 54F\nof the IT Act....\n4.3 Thus he submitted that it is grossly incorrect to initiate 263\nproceedings on the ground of no enquiry or inadequate inquiry.\nConsequently, the order of the AO dt.28.12.2019 is neither\nerroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

MAHESH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

gains of\nRs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had been claimed u/s 54F\nof the IT Act....\n4.3 Thus he submitted that it is grossly incorrect to initiate 263\nproceedings on the ground of no enquiry or inadequate inquiry.\nConsequently, the order of the AO dt.28.12.2019 is neither\nerroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

gain or loss on the same would have been allowable to the assessee. But the assessee did not do so. 4.5.6. Whereas, according to the submission of the assessee before us, the assessee entered into forward contracts with banks at predetermined exchange rate of foreign currency to safeguard it receivables from any fluctuation in foreign exchange. By entering into such

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

gain or loss on the same would have been allowable to the assessee. But the assessee did not do so. 4.5.6. Whereas, according to the submission of the assessee before us, the assessee entered into forward contracts with banks at predetermined exchange rate of foreign currency to safeguard it receivables from any fluctuation in foreign exchange. By entering into such

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

gain or loss on the same would have been allowable to the assessee. But the assessee did not do so. 4.5.6. Whereas, according to the submission of the assessee before us, the assessee entered into forward contracts with banks at predetermined exchange rate of foreign currency to safeguard it receivables from any fluctuation in foreign exchange. By entering into such

COFFEEDAY TRADING LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

section 143(2) of the Act to the Assessee, in response to which the Assessee filed part reply. Thereafter various statutory notices were issued to the Assessee, in response to which the Assessee filed relevant replies. 3. On perusing the replies filed by the Assessee and material available on record, the Assessing Officer observed that the Assessee during

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

section 133(6) from the Lokayukta by the AO and he observed that there is difference in the jewellery declared. Therefore, the information received from the Lokayukta is part and parcel of the incriminating documents found during the course of search. The assessee has not explained the apparent discrepancies in his own statements on affidavit before the statutory authorities

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains. The AO also pointed out that as per the original debenture purchase agreement, the holder of debentures was entitled to a coupon payment at 13.75%. However, no such coupon or interest income was realized or considered at the time of redemption. The assessee’s claim that waiver of interest was based on an informal agreement was found

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains. The AO also pointed out that as per the original debenture purchase agreement, the holder of debentures was entitled to a coupon payment at 13.75%. However, no such coupon or interest income was realized or considered at the time of redemption. The assessee’s claim that waiver of interest was based on an informal agreement was found

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains. The AO also pointed out that as per the original debenture purchase agreement, the holder of debentures was entitled to a coupon payment at 13.75%. However, no such coupon or interest income was realized or considered at the time of redemption. The assessee’s claim that waiver of interest was based on an informal agreement was found