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 ('LTCG') of Rs.\n22,55,37,300/- arising from sale of bonus shares. The Assessee\nwas issued a notice under section 148 of the Act by the learned\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) (“AO”) on\n31.03.2021 to reassess the income for AY 2017-18. The notice\nrequired the Assessee to file a return

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in relation to AY 2016-2017. 2. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that the grounds of appeal filed along with Form No.36 on 23.6.2021 can be taken up for consideration. In ground No.1 to 16 of the grounds of appeal, the Assessee has challenged the order

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

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

144C gives a complete go bye to section 153; and (ii) The Act does not contemplate any limitation for passing of draft assessment order, which can be passed within a reasonable time. 14. Though arguments were advanced that the aforesaid decision does not lay down the correct law, we are of the view that a co-ordinate Bench decision

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

M/S INATECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

5 of 23 section referred to as the draft order) to the eligible assessee if he proposes to make, any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee". c. The learned AO has erred in passing order under Section 143(3) of the Act along with notice of demand under section

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

RAVIKUMAR TIRUPATI PARTHASARATHY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

section 144C of the Act, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C by issuing a draft assessment order in which an addition of Rs.52,89,346 was made towards capital gains. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the DRP, who confirmed the said addition. The AO in the final assessment order considered the correct indexation value

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

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

5 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP erred in not directing the AO to delete the levy of DDT on buy-back of shares as proposed in the draft assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act. 6 That on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S.ASM TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.66/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Asm Technologies Ltd., Vs. Dcit, No.80/2, Lusanne Court, Circle – 1(1)(2), Richmond Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aabca 4362 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

Capital Adjustment (As per Annex. C) Adjusted margin 23.06% 61,22,85,229 Operating Cost (in Rs.) 75,34,76,203 Arm's Length Price(ALP) (in Its.) 123.06% of Operating Cost) Price Received (in Rs.) 71,14,17,247 4,20,60,956 Variation between the ALP and price received (in Rs.) 3,55,70,862 5% of price

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

INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s C

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

capital adjustment has been granted at actuals i.e., (-)1.40%, without making any restriction as contended by Revenue in the grounds of appeal, ground Nos. 4 and 5 raised on this issue are infructuous as they require no adjudication and are accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 10. Ground No.6 – Exclusion of M/s. Acropetal Technologies Ltd., (Acropetal) 10.1 In this ground (supra), Revenue

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

capital gains to Rs. 1,11,26,626/- (from Rs. 64,86,375/- claimed by the assessee). As such, the excess indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 46,40,251/- was disallowed by the AO and added back to the returned income of the assessee. 5. The assessee filed objections before the ld. DRP, which upheld the AO's decision

SUN GARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1487/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Sun Gard Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Embassy Icon, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001 Pan Aaace 7476K Appellant Respondent.

Capital Adjustment (as per Annexure C) 2.19% Adjusted mean margin of the comparables 21.46% Operating Cost Rs.34,76,70,376 Arm’s Length Margin 121.46% of Operating Cost Arm’s Length Price (ALP) Rs.42,22,80,439 Price Received Rs.39,87,70,164 Shortfall being adjustment u/s. 92CA Rs.2,35,10,275 3.5 Based on the above computation

MERCEDES - BENZ RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) dt.20.1.2016, both Revenue and the assessee have preferred cross appeals. In the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee had filed paper book, case law compendium and chart of comparables seeking inclusion / exclusion of 10 IT(TP)A Nos.269 & 381/Bang/2016 certain companies into / from the list of comparables. We have heard both parties, perused

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