M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains and not income from business arising from adventure in the nature of trade:- ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s. ETA Star Infopark, Bangalore Page 15 of 73 (i) CIT v. Razia Sulaiman, ITA No. 412 of 2007 dated 19.09.2011 (Karn. HC) (ii) CIT vs Smt.Suparna Mahesh ITA No.3232 of 2005 dated 8-2- 2011 (Karn.HC) (iii) CIT v. M/s. Bagmane Developers

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains and not income from business arising from adventure in the nature of trade:- ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s. ETA Star Infopark, Bangalore Page 15 of 73 (i) CIT v. Razia Sulaiman, ITA No. 412 of 2007 dated 19.09.2011 (Karn. HC) (ii) CIT vs Smt.Suparna Mahesh ITA No.3232 of 2005 dated 8-2- 2011 (Karn.HC) (iii) CIT v. M/s. Bagmane Developers

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

gains arising on sale of shares of M/ s. BPL Communication Pvt. Ltd owned by the assessee. This incorrect, bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs to be disallowed and added

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

gains arising on sale of shares of M/ s. BPL Communication Pvt. Ltd owned by the assessee. This incorrect, bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs to be disallowed and added

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

gains arising on sale of shares of M/ s. BPL Communication Pvt. Ltd owned by the assessee. This incorrect, bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs to be disallowed and added

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

gains arising on sale of shares of M/ s. BPL Communication Pvt. Ltd owned by the assessee. This incorrect, bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs to be disallowed and added

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

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

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

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.” Page 10 of 20 10. Thus, from close scrutiny of the provisions of section 263, it is evident that twin conditions

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VECTRA CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2009-10

capital gains in terms of section 71(2) of the Act as follows: Business income declared Rs. 82,89,119

SRI. RAMAIAH DORAIRAJ,BENGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarishri Ramaiah Dorairaj, No.2186, Bmkaval, Hal 3Rd Stage, Bangalore-560 075 ….Appellant Pan Abrpd 2580L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadrshi Mishra, Jcit (D.R)

119 taxmann.com 488 (Mad) 7. Smt. Babitha Kemparajee Urs Vs. CIT (2017) 86 taxmann.com 43 (Bang-Trib) 8. Kannan Chandrashekar Vs. ITO (2017) 82 taxmann.com 284 (Chennai-Trib) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that Section 54F(4) of the Act stipulates that for claiming the benefit of Capital Gain

SARITHA FLAVINA DSOUZA,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

119 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The issue raised by the assessee on grounds of appeal pertains to the addition of long-term capital gain on sale of land & building. 6. The brief facts are that the assessee

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 is not chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2008-09 but it is chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2007-08. Therefore the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment merely on account of change of opinion without any new material coming into light. The reopening is based on a different view by the succeeding officer than

DR. R SRIDHAR,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain and the ex gratia to employees of REPL was submitted by the assessee before the AO and after examination of the same, the AO had passed the order after due application of mind on the impugned issues. Hence, it could not be said that the order of the AO was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial

CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gains”. Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore Page 5 of 14 3.2 Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 4. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on that ground that in the present case as there is not even Sanction Plan

A.KRISHNAPPA (HUF) ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri A. Krishnappa (Huf), By Kartha Dr. Srinivas, No. 1025/13, 11Th Main Road, The Income Tax Officer, Rpc Layout, Vs. Ward – 3 (2) (2), Vijayanagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 040. Pan: Aabha1818F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2019

capital gain in respect of additional compensation for land # 102-MRCR Layout. Thereafter he submitted that on pages 75 to 80 of the paper book is the copy of agreement for sale dated 01.07.1991 and on pages 81 to 88 of the paper book is the copy of supplementary agreement dated 30.12.1991. He also submitted that on pages

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section. 7 IT(TP)A No.505-508 & CO 135/Bang/2015 M/s.Cisco Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to compute deduction u/s 10A in the above manner by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s Tata

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section. 7 IT(TP)A No.505-508 & CO 135/Bang/2015 M/s.Cisco Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to compute deduction u/s 10A in the above manner by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s Tata

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital gains of Rs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had been claimed u/s 54F of the IT Act.... 4.3 Thus he submitted that it is grossly incorrect to initiate 263 proceedings on the ground of no enquiry or inadequate inquiry. Consequently, the order of the AO dt.28.12.2019 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial