NAGAMMA,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE-WARD 1, RAICHUR

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

gain account scheme account. Hence, the amount spent on\nconstruction of house in Financial Year 2018-19 starting from January 2019\nwas not allowed under section 54F of the Act. The AO allowed index cost of\nacquisition of Rs.26,92,131/- and deduction under section 54B of the Act was\nallowed of Rs.16,01,435/-. Accordingly, long term capital

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

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

capital creditors. 15.1 Before examining the merits of the rival contentions, it is necessary to briefly advert to the statutory architecture of faceless assessment. Under section 144B of the Act, the assessment proceedings are conducted through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, which may assign different functions to specialized units, namely the Assessment Unit, Verification Unit, Technical Unit and Review Unit

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

capital gain of Rs.\n55,49,07,175/- (Rs.75,73,97,892 – Rs.20,24,90,717/-) was offered\nto tax.\n4.1 Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny\nand accordingly notice under section 143(2), 142(1) as well as 131

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

131(1A) of the Act.\n10.3 The learned CIT(A) regarding the contention of the assessee that\nloose sheet or materials found during the search are not the books of\naccount, held that loose sheet found and seized during the search\ncontains valuable information, therefore the same are regarded as\nITA No.1060-1559-1560-1561/Bang/2024 &\n903-1547-1548-1549/Bang/2024\nPage

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

capital gain of Rs.\n55,49,07,175/- (Rs.75,73,97,892 – Rs.20,24,90,717/-) was offered\nto tax.\n4.1 Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny\nand accordingly notice under section 143(2), 142(1) as well as 131

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

131 of the Act on 25.1.2016. However, the same was not reflected in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. 5.4 Later, the assessee could establish the evidence in the books of accounts only to the extent of Rs.2,19,16,087/-. However, on later stage, assessee offered additional income of Rs.5

M/S. SRI. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES(REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

131(1A) of the Act.\n10.3 The learned CIT(A) regarding the contention of the assessee that\nloose sheet or materials found during the search are not the books of\naccount, held that loose sheet found and seized during the search\ncontains valuable information, therefore the same are regarded as\nincriminating documents and presumption under section

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.

capital gains ('LTCG') arising from sale of listed securities on recognized stock exchange at 20 per cent instead of 10 per cent 15.1 The learned Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in law in levying tax at the rate of 20 per cent on LTCG arising from sale of listed shares of USL on recognized stock exchange instead of beneficial rate

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.

capital gains ('LTCG') arising from sale of listed securities on recognized stock exchange at 20 per cent instead of 10 per cent 15.1 The learned Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in law in levying tax at the rate of 20 per cent on LTCG arising from sale of listed shares of USL on recognized stock exchange instead of beneficial rate

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

131(1A) of the Act.\n10.3 The learned CIT(A) regarding the contention of the assessee that\nloose sheet or materials found during the search are not the books of\naccount, held that loose sheet found and seized during the search\ncontains valuable information, therefore the same are regarded as\nITA No.1060-1559-1560-1561/Bang/2024 &\n903-1547-1548-1549/Bang/2024\nPage

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

131(1A) of the Act.\n10.3 The learned CIT(A) regarding the contention of the assessee that\nloose sheet or materials found during the search are not the books of\naccount, held that loose sheet found and seized during the search\ncontains valuable information, therefore the same are regarded as\nITA No.1060-1559-1561/Bang/2024 &\n903-1547-1548-1549/Bang/2024\nPage

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD), KOLAR

131(1A) of the Act.\n10.3 The learned CIT(A) regarding the contention of the assessee that\nloose sheet or materials found during the search are not the books of\naccount, held that loose sheet found and seized during the search\ncontains valuable information, therefore the same are regarded as\nITA No.1060-1559-1560-1561/Bang/2024 &\n903-1547-1548-1549/Bang/2024\nPage

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

131(1A) of the Act.\n10.3 The learned CIT(A) regarding the contention of the assessee that\nloose sheet or materials found during the search are not the books of\naccount, held that loose sheet found and seized during the search\ncontains valuable information, therefore the same are regarded as\nITA No.1060-1559-1560-1561/Bang/2024 &\n903-1547-1548-1549/Bang/2024\nPage

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

131(1A) of the Act.\n10.3 The learned CIT(A) regarding the contention of the assessee that\nloose sheet or materials found during the search are not the books of\naccount, held that loose sheet found and seized during the search\ncontains valuable information, therefore the same are regarded as\nITA No.1060-1559-1561/Bang/2024 &\n903-1547-1548-1549/Bang/2024\nPage

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

131 (Kol.) (Trib.)  Yashoda Health Care Services P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 54 ITR 26 (Hyd.) (Trib.)  Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 53 ITR 5 (Kol.) (Trib.) 7. While calculating the disallowance under section 14A, only the investments that have generated exempt income should be taken into consideration. In other words, if an investment has not yielded any exempt

MR. JAGANATH RAMACHANDRA JAMADAR ,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BIDAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

capital gains for the AY 2017-18 which is not in terms of section 45(2) of the Act. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO had grossly erred in considering the cost of acquisition at Rs 3,00,000 and not Rs 3,35,000 as incurred by me towards