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

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

capital gains w.r.t. to transactions pertaining to registered JDAs will\ndiffer from facts and circumstances of each case. Willingness to\nperform is a necessary fact to be established in concluding whether or\nnot there exists transfer in terms of Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act.\nIn view of the above, we have

MR. IBRAHIM SHARIFF,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Ibrahim Shariff, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.102, Royal Mantor, Ward – 4(3)(1), 14Th B Cross, Sarakki Signal, Bengaluru. J. P. Nagar 1St Phase, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Cmtps 2195 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. Kiran Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.10.2023

160, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred holding Rs.1,26,25,000 as fair market value for the purpose of computation u/s.48 r.w.sec.50C. 2. Since the cost of improvement towards construction of residential building at Door No.22-12-149, Voora Vari Street, Lalapet, Guntur, was: f.y.89-90, Rs.5,00,000', the computation in the return of income as f.y.12-13, Rs.5

DB ENGINEERING & CONSULTING GMBH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & It(It)A No.1377/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Db Engineering & Consulting Gmbh, Dcit (International 82/4, 3Rd Floor, North Wing, Hulkul Brigade Taxation), Centre, Lavelle Road, Ward No.76, Vs. Circle – 1(1), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan :Aaecd 9085 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Susan Mathew, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024

sections 112 or 112A being tax on long term capital gains. Tax on income chargeable to tax as per rates specified in DTAA is not covered in this part of the First Schedule. Hence the question of levying surcharge on income covered by DTAA rates or including them for determining the rate of surcharge does not arise. 4. Also, Chapter

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

160 Taxman 48/289 ITR 6 (SC), where the apex court has held that investment made by a banking concern are part of the business of banking. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in by passing the Circular No.18 of 2015 dated 2.11.2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ratifying M/s. Canara Bank., Bangalore Page

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains arising from sale of original property in a new residential house is eligible for claim of exemption under section 54 F of the Act, and ought to have given all the benefits and exemptions available as per the statute, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, to the right to seek waiver

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

capital wherein interest bearing funds have been advanced interest free to the sister concern was deliberated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Vs. CIT (Supra). The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as under:- “In order to decide whether interest on funds borrowed by the assessee to give an interest free loan

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

section 144C (7) of the act. The learned assessing officer submitting the remand report on 25/10/2024. In the remand proceedings, assessee submitted the computation of income for the assessment year 2015 – 16, passport, financial statements such as balance sheet, profit, and loss account. The assessee claimed that he is holding since long shares in three private limited companies

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

gain profit by trading in them or with an intention\nto earn dividend/interest from there. All these investments were\nmade in our subsidiaries which are closely held private limited\ncompanies exclusively doing power generation business. In fact,\nwe are not allowed to trade in these investments as they are all\nclosely held private limited companies and hence cannot be traded

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPECIAL RANGE - 1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

sections 182, 212, 213, 222, 223 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 60 throw light on the relationship between the principal and his agent. The principal always indemnifies the agent for the loss incurred in the course of the business. The agent is required

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

capital gains on entering into Joint ventures and also on sale of some sites/properties. 4.2 Further, it is also noticed that Shri. T Puttaraju has invested in properties in his name as well as in the name of his son. The income from house property on the properties held in the name of his son, Shri. Vajramuni K.P is found

KALKERE PUTTARAJU VAJRAMUNIE, ROYAL HERMITAGE, KALKERE B.O, KALKERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

capital gains on entering into Joint ventures and also on sale of some sites/properties. 4.2 Further, it is also noticed that Shri. T Puttaraju has invested in properties in his name as well as in the name of his son. The income from house property on the properties held in the name of his son, Shri. Vajramuni K.P is found

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

capital gains, it was farfetched, if not\nunreasonable, on the part of the Assessing Officer to doubt their honesty in\nthis behalf. For all practical purposes, the Assessing Officer subjected the\nassessees to a verification equivalent to the one made by the police officials\nvis-a-vis a person, who committed the crime. Though it is a prerogative of\nthe