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

gain\nwhich arises from the transfer of a capital asset, which\ncould be brought to tax under Section 45 read with Section\n48 of the Income Tax Act.\n13. The assessee in the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the\nappeal late before the Tribunal has also mentioned the\nfactual aspects and the legal dispute and has stated on oath

MR. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

138/- is after set-off of long-term capital gains of Rs. 8,18,960/- with short term capital loss of Rs. 1,61,821/-. However, the taxable long term capital loss is Rs. 1,10,646/- which is computed as per the provisions of Section

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

Capital Gain on Sale of shares of CanFin\nHome Ltd.\n9.\nDisallowance of Provision for Bad & Doubtful Debt u/s\n36(1)(viia) (viiu)\n10.\nShort Allowance of Tax Deducted at Source\n11.\nShort Allowance of Tax Paid by Overseas Branch u/s\n90/91\n12.\nApplicability of Provisions of MAT u/s 115JB\nTOTAL\n1,02,865\n703,92,01,889\n1569

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

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

Capital Gain on Sale of Shares of CanFin\nHome Ltd\n703,92,01,889\n9.\nDisallowance of Provision for Bad & Doubtful Debt U/s\n36(1)(viia)\n1569,59,38,804\n10.\nShort Allowance of Tax Deducted at Source.\n15,10,41,394\n11.\nShort Allowance of Tax Paid by Overseas Branch u/s\n90/91\n7,17,62,335\n12.\nApplicability

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

138/-. The ld. AO has raised a demand of Rs.1086,07,00,024/- after charging interest u/s 234B of the Act as per the normal provisions of the Act. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved

SAPNA HEMANSHU SHAH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

section 54 in respect of expenditure on interiors of new residential house property amounting to Rs.8,65,641/-.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 22/07/2013 declaring income of Rs.5,49,610/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee submitted reply

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

capital gains by adopting deemed\nsale consideration at Rs. 26,89,99,677/-. However, the assessee has\nfailed to do so. It has also been seen that the assessee has furnished\nincorrect details regarding sale consideration of one property sold and\ndeclared in the ITR as per the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax\nAct

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

capital gains by adopting deemed\nsale consideration at Rs. 26,89,99,677/-. However, the assessee has\nfailed to do so. It has also been seen that the assessee has furnished\nincorrect details regarding sale consideration of one property sold and\ndeclared in the ITR as per the provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax\nAct

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

capital expenditure is governed by the Section 43A of the Act. Since in the above batch of the appeals, the assessment year involved was 1998-99, the SC decided the issue in view of Section 43A (pre-amended w.e.f. 01/04/2003) of the Act. After 1-4-2003, the issue is governed by the amended Section

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

capital expenditure is governed by the Section 43A of the Act. Since in the above batch of the appeals, the assessment year involved was 1998-99, the SC decided the issue in view of Section 43A (pre-amended w.e.f. 01/04/2003) of the Act. After 1-4-2003, the issue is governed by the amended Section

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

capital expenditure is governed by the Section 43A of the Act. Since in the above batch of the appeals, the assessment year involved was 1998-99, the SC decided the issue in view of Section 43A (pre-amended w.e.f. 01/04/2003) of the Act. After 1-4-2003, the issue is governed by the amended Section

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

capital by the cooperative societies engaged in providing credit facilities to the members is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the ruling of Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd(supra), Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and Lalitamba Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita vs. ITO as well as by the decision

DANDU JOJAPPA FRANCIS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains at Rs. 2,83,61,200/- apart from the other additions. Admittedly, the income estimated by the AO is more than Rs. 50 Lakhs and the notice was also issued after the period of 3 years and therefore the assessing officer has to obtain the prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. The section

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\n\nC. The Third issue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

capital fund. Thus, it is evident that interest on NCDs, interest on loan to Subsidiaries, interest on debentures, interest on Govt securities, interest on tax refunds, insurance claim, incentive from airlines and rental income from BSNL are offered to tax under the head Profits and gains of business and not under the head Income from other sources

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\nC. The Third issue is that

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

KANIGERE RAMEGOWDA NINGARAJU,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, HASSAN

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2015-16

capital gains under section 45 of the Act. Holding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, the PCIT relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 95 taxmann.com 366 and CIT v. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 115, and set aside