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 gains from bonus shares as business income without issuing a draft assessment order.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny for AY 2016-17 by examining issues beyond those identified. For AY 2017-18, the assessment order was void ab initio for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 144C

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

Capital Gains Accounts Scheme as mandated under IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 4 of 16 section 54(2) of the Act. 5 The construction has not been completed within three years period i.e. within 31/07/2018. 3.3 The AO accordingly assessed the LTCG at Rs. 26,91,120/-. The AO passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Capital Gain u/s.45 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 12.12.2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book in support of his case. 5. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

144C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Grounds on merits of the matter: a. Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 10(38),Rs.28,65,882/-: i. The authorities below were not justified in disallowing the claim of exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Act with respect to the capital gains

RANGARAJ ROHINI,INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE 2(1) BANGALORE, KORMANGALA BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 143(3)/ 144C(13) for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. The necessary facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and filed her Income Tax Return for AY 2022-23 on 16.05.2022, declaring total income at Rs. 64,86,380/- only. The assessee declared her residential status as "Non-Resident." The assessee reported

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

capital gain income of Rs. 37,28,537/- on sale of sale of equity share / unit of equity oriented Mutual Fund under section 111A. 3.2 Subsequent to a survey conducted under section 133A, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued, requiring the Assessee to file

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.

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The relevant M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. assessment year is 2014-15. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. Facts pertaining to both the assessees are identical except for variation in figures. Therefore we are setting

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.

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The relevant M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. assessment year is 2014-15. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. Facts pertaining to both the assessees are identical except for variation in figures. Therefore we are setting

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

gain as operating in nature for the purpose of computing OP/TC of the Appellant and the OP/TC of the comparable companies remaining in the final set; 6.9. Erred in not providing appropriate adjustments to account for differences in working capital employed by the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies. IT(TP)A No.154/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 28 6.10 Erred

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed and all the stay petitions filed by the assessee\nstands dismissed as infructuous

Capital gains\") for—\n(i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a\nlicence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design,\nsecret formula or process or trade mark or similar property;\n(ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working\nof, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret\nformula or process

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

144C of the IT Act, on 23.09.2021 at a total assessed income of Rs.56,09,42,530/- after making an addition of Rs.21,45,00,000/- on account of premium accrued on RPS under Income from other sources. 9. The ld. AR relied on the order of the Tribunal. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

144C of the IT Act, on 23.09.2021 at a total assessed income of Rs.56,09,42,530/- after making an addition of Rs.21,45,00,000/- on account of premium accrued on RPS under Income from other sources. 9. The ld. AR relied on the order of the Tribunal. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for assessment year 2016-17 in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 29.03.2021. IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 110 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.11.2016 declaring

MS. PUSPHA RAO PAMIDI,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahums. Pushpa Rao Pamidi Vs Dcit, Circle - 2(1) No. 156/1, C/O T. Viswanath & Co Bengaluru Sharada Mansion, 2Nd Floor R V Road, V V Puram Bengaluru 560004 Pan – Bhhpp1695K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sathish S., Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.07.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit We Find That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Cannot Be Attributed To Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay Of Four Days & Proceed To Dispose Of The Case On Merits.

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The relevant assessment year is 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of four days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons

RAHUL AGARWAL ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144C(15)(b). 3. The DRP/ AO, having accepted the fact that the Appellant 52,19,475 was resident in India during the relevant previous year, ought to have held that the AO had no jurisdiction to assess the Appellant. 4. The impugned order deserves to be quashed as the initiation 52,19,475 of proceedings under section 148 read

NISHA VIJAY ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

144C (13) of the Act dated 22.01.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has also filed statement of facts, grounds of appeal along with the written submissions. 6. We have heard ld. Department Representative Dr. Divya.K.J., CIT and perused the material available on record. The assessee being a senior citizen non-resident

VIJAY LAKHMICHAND ISRANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

144C (13) of the Act dated 22.01.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has also filed statement of facts, grounds of appeal along with the written submissions. 6. We have heard ld. Department Representative Dr. Divya.K.J., CIT and perused the material available on record. The assessee being a senior citizen non-resident

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

144C(3) of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), in pursuance to the directions of\nthe Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru\n(\"Ld. DRP\"), assessing the income of the Appellant at\nINR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR\n38,59,910 is bad in law.\nGeneral Ground\nPressed\nPage 7 of 32\nS.P

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

144C(3) of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), in pursuance to the directions of\nthe Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru\n(\"Ld. DRP\"), assessing the income of the Appellant at\nINR 39,96,89,857 instead of returned income of INR\n38,59,910 is bad in law.\nGeneral Ground\nPressed\nPage 7 of 32\nS.P