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

1-4-2003 the sale of self-generated trademark was not liable to capital gain tax. It was only by amendment of section 55 (2)(a) words ‘trade mark or brand name associated with the business’ was introduced. The amendment does have prospective operation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court upheld the view of the Tribunal. 21. The learned

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

131(Delhi) (refer page 193 – 198 of PB) IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 16 of 56 Sl Caselaw with Citation Favourable/ Forum Date of No._ unfavourable pronouncement 15 Google LLC vs Favourable Bangalore 20 February JCIT(OSD)/DCIT(IT) ITAT 2023 [IT(IT)Appeal Nos 167/Bang/2021 & 688/Bang/2022

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

131(Delhi) (refer page 193 – 198 of PB) IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 16 of 56 Sl Caselaw with Citation Favourable/ Forum Date of No._ unfavourable pronouncement 15 Google LLC vs Favourable Bangalore 20 February JCIT(OSD)/DCIT(IT) ITAT 2023 [IT(IT)Appeal Nos 167/Bang/2021 & 688/Bang/2022

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

131(Delhi) (refer page 193 – 198 of PB) IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 16 of 56 Sl Caselaw with Citation Favourable/ Forum Date of No._ unfavourable pronouncement 15 Google LLC vs Favourable Bangalore 20 February JCIT(OSD)/DCIT(IT) ITAT 2023 [IT(IT)Appeal Nos 167/Bang/2021 & 688/Bang/2022

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

131(Delhi) (refer page 193 – 198 of PB) IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 16 of 56 Sl Caselaw with Citation Favourable/ Forum Date of No._ unfavourable pronouncement 15 Google LLC vs Favourable Bangalore 20 February JCIT(OSD)/DCIT(IT) ITAT 2023 [IT(IT)Appeal Nos 167/Bang/2021 & 688/Bang/2022

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

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

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] wherein the assessee has stated that she was not owner nor operating any bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva and therefore the transaction did not relate to him. However, addition was made in these assessment years towards the transactions in HSBC Bank, Geneva. Against this, the assessee carried the matter before

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] wherein the assessee has stated that she was not owner nor operating any bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva and therefore the transaction did not relate to him. However, addition was made in these assessment years towards the transactions in HSBC Bank, Geneva. Against this, the assessee carried the matter before

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

131]. It is precisely for this reason that the legislature has introduced section 2(47)(v) read with section 45 which indicates that capital gains is taxable in the year in which such transactions are entered into even if the transfer of immovable property is not effective or complete under the general law.”(emphasis supplied) 3.69 He relied

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

capital fund.] Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "computer software" means,— (a)any computer programme recorded on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device; or (b)any customized electronic data or any product or service of similar nature, as may be notified by the Board, which is transmitted or exported from India

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from

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

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

131/- and deduction under section 54B of the Act was\nallowed of Rs.16,01,435/-. Accordingly, long term capital gain was calculated\nat Rs.26,06,434/-. Assessee filed detailed written submissions which was\nconsidered and not accepted and AO made addition under the LTCG of\nRs.26,06,434/-.\n3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the\nCIT

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

capital gains was offered. The learned CIT[A] also held that the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case do not support the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act, for not only in not filing the return but Page 7 of 37 also in the absence of meeting the stipulated conditionality required to claim deduction

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

capital gains shown by assessee was bogus and no separate reason disclosing satisfaction of assessing Officer for formation of belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment had been recorded, notice issued under section 148 was to be quashed and assessment made in pursuance thereof was to be annulled. 46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Dhariya Construction