SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the assessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gains tax. These points were considered by the various decisions of the Apex court and High Courts and he, particularly relied on the following decisions : i) CIT v. Gemini Pictures P. Ltd., (1996) 220 ITR 43 (SC); ii) Mahaveer Enterprises v. Union of India (2000) 224 ITR 789 (Raj); iii) CWT v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) Paigah

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

c) According to section 54F(2) the amount of capital gain which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilized by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before

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

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

C\"BENCH: BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\n Assessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\n Assessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

13 of the impugned order.Despite noticing the fact that the security deposit would be repaid by the land owners, the A.O. held that the refundable security deposit constitutes payment of consideration for transfer of immovable property attracting TDS under section 194IA. 3.32 The learned AR submitted that an important characteristic of ‘consideration’ is that the same belongs to the transferor

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

C Rambhahmam , ChEnnai, in ITR No. 943/Mds/2012, order dated 31.10.2012. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted , without prejudice, that he is conceding that deduction should be allowed to the tune of Rs. 13,84,664/- instead of Rs.18,38,292/- , by deducting interest on housing loan claimed as deduction u/s 24(b) to the tune of Rs.4

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

2). Taxing gain on slump sale as capital gain is also not possible because the Apex Court following the decision in CIT V. B. C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) held that the charging section and the computation sections are integrated code and if one fails other fails. If the computation sections fail then even the charging section fails

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

c) Indexed cost of land Rs.1,42,47,093 d) Brokerage and legal charges Rs. 22,21,360 18. Thus, capital gain of Rs.5,55,31,547 was offered for taxation. In respect of Rs.5 crores for improvement, the assessee claimed an amount Page 11 of 40 of Rs.1,63,70,521 as expenses towards cost of fencing

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

section 143(2) on the basis of the aforesaid return which was non-est in law. The ratio decidendi of this judgement is that the AO is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) at all, in a case where the assessee filed the return beyond the time limit prescribed for furnishing such return. It follows from this judgement

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

C+D) Rs. 68,81,000/- 4.2 Further, the assessee against the taxable income at normal slab rate of Rs. 68,81,000/- claimed deduction under section 80G of the Act . ITA No.2194 & 2195/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 16 for Rs. 68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income of Rs. 36,78,25,370/- being taxable at special

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

c) of the Companies Act, inter alia, provides that "where the holder of any preference she has a right to vote on any resolution in accordance with the provisions of this subsection, his voting right on a poll, as the holder of such share, shall, subject to the proportion of section 89 and sub section (2) of section

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India Favourable Delhi HC 13 September (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2010 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) 3 Abbey Business Services Favourable Bangalore 18 July 2012 India Pvt Ltd (23 ITAT Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance Favourable Mumbai 4 September India Private Limited

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India Favourable Delhi HC 13 September (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2010 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) 3 Abbey Business Services Favourable Bangalore 18 July 2012 India Pvt Ltd (23 ITAT Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance Favourable Mumbai 4 September India Private Limited

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India Favourable Delhi HC 13 September (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2010 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) 3 Abbey Business Services Favourable Bangalore 18 July 2012 India Pvt Ltd (23 ITAT Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance Favourable Mumbai 4 September India Private Limited

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India Favourable Delhi HC 13 September (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2010 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) 3 Abbey Business Services Favourable Bangalore 18 July 2012 India Pvt Ltd (23 ITAT Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance Favourable Mumbai 4 September India Private Limited

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14)(iii)(b). c. The land is actually classified as agricultural land as per Government revenue records and this land is subject to revenue land tax. d. The land was actually and ordinarily used for agricultural purpose, since it was purchased till the date of sale. e. Even today the land is classified under agricultural land

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14)(iii)(b). c. The land is actually classified as agricultural land as per Government revenue records and this land is subject to revenue land tax. d. The land was actually and ordinarily used for agricultural purpose, since it was purchased till the date of sale. e. Even today the land is classified under agricultural land

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14)(iii)(b). c. The land is actually classified as agricultural land as per Government revenue records and this land is subject to revenue land tax. d. The land was actually and ordinarily used for agricultural purpose, since it was purchased till the date of sale. e. Even today the land is classified under agricultural land

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14)(iii)(b). c. The land is actually classified as agricultural land as per Government revenue records and this land is subject to revenue land tax. d. The land was actually and ordinarily used for agricultural purpose, since it was purchased till the date of sale. e. Even today the land is classified under agricultural land