K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

154 of the Act was passed and the same was processed on 18/08/2022 by determining the total income of Rs.5,07,94,880/-. A search u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 23/02/2022 in the case of Komrala and Nanda Group of Companies, in the course of which the residential premise of the assessee at 66/1(164), Pranav, South

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

154 of the Act was passed and the same was processed on 18/08/2022 by determining the total income of Rs.5,07,94,880/-. A search u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 23/02/2022 in the case of Komrala and Nanda Group of Companies, in the course of which the residential premise of the assessee at 66/1(164), Pranav, South

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

154 of the I.T.Act by the A.O., confirmation issued by the builder of the new asset (flat), submissions to the notice issued u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, etc. The assessee appeared in person and argued the case at length. He raised arguments both on the validity / jurisdiction of the CIT to invoke revisionary powers u/s 263 of the I.T.Act

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

154/- being cost of acquisition of residential property on Site No. 839/21, 37th F Cross, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011 on 10.2.2011 for an amount of Rs. 1,52,02,905/- and construction of residential house on the same property value of Rs. 3,12,13,249/-. 2.1 The Ld.AO observed that assessee also constructed a residential house

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

154 taxmann.com 653 (Mum-Trib.) to contend that the deemed rent of unsold stock is to be computed notionally by the AO. In respect of the issue of gain to be taxed as LTCG or STCG the Ld DR has relied upon on the order of AO, similarly for the issue of hiring income from plant and machinery

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

capital gain. Our attention was drawn to the following extracts of the judgement: As held by the Tribunal at the relevant time there was no power vested in the authorities under the Act to substitute a full value of consideration received for sale of shares by fair market value in respect of stocks a nd shares. The power to substitute

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

capital gains remained unchanged at Rs. 3,58,312/-. 3. Against the intimation order, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital gains as the commission paid u/s 69C of the Act. 23. The appellant denies the liabilities for interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. Further prays that the interest if any should be levied only on returned income. 24. The appellant denies the liability for interest u/s 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s 234D is against

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

section 54/54F of the Act. The essence of the said provision is whether the assessee who received capital gains has invested in a residential house. Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions are not complete

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(5) PRESENTLY CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 154(7), such order which is sought to be amended, would determine the period of limitation. 29. In the present case, subsequent orders dated December 31, 2009 and January 25, 2011 were not in respect to the assessment of other items but confined to limited issue of "long-term capital gain

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

gain if there is an increase in profits and the whole-time Directors are remunerated for that. At the risk of repetition, it is stated that this has been approved by the shareholders who are the ultimate authority in approving the Directors remuneration as per the Companies Act and overseen by the NRC. Subsequently, in the meeting held

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

gains has to be computed u/s 48. Page 9 of 19 The Sentiments emerging from the aforesaid observations of High Court is applicable to the assessee to conclude that even a nil consideration on capital reduction cannot defeat the computation mechanism u/s 48. We also draw your attention to the following judgments: CIT v G. Narasimhan & other

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

gains arising on sale of shares of M/ s. BPL Communication Pvt. Ltd owned by the assessee. This incorrect, bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs to be disallowed and added

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

gains arising on sale of shares of M/ s. BPL Communication Pvt. Ltd owned by the assessee. This incorrect, bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs to be disallowed and added

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

gains arising on sale of shares of M/ s. BPL Communication Pvt. Ltd owned by the assessee. This incorrect, bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs to be disallowed and added