ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain as offered by the appellant is to be accepted. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A 8. and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 9. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain as offered by the appellant is to be accepted. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A 8. and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 9. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain as offered by the appellant is to be accepted. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A 8. and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 9. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain as offered by the appellant is to be accepted. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A 8. and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 9. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain as offered by the appellant is to be accepted. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A 8. and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 9. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain as offered by the appellant is to be accepted. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234A 8. and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 9. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains and no addition can be made as explained above. 43. In view of the above submissions made, as explained, there is no escapement of income. 44. In view of the above submissions made the appellant requests that the order as made be quashed or atleast all the additions made in the order be deleted and interest levied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

168 (Kar) the Hon'ble High Court has held that "In the absence of Incriminating Documents having been found, the same accounts of the assessee were re assessed by making further reinvestigations and this was impermissible, as the same would amount to reopening a concluded assessment, without there being any additional material found at the time of search. Otherwise

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

168 (Kar) the Hon'ble High Court has held that "In the absence of Incriminating Documents having been found, the same accounts of the assessee were re assessed by making further reinvestigations and this was impermissible, as the same would amount to reopening a concluded assessment, without there being any additional material found at the time of search. Otherwise

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

gains arising on account of exchange fluctuation are not liable to ITA Nos.510 & 662/Bang/2014 Page 17 of 37 tax as it is on capital account and is required to be adjusted in the year of actual repayment of loan from the actual cost of asset. To this extent, the direction of the CIT(A) is modified and the grounds

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

gains arising on account of exchange fluctuation are not liable to ITA Nos.510 & 662/Bang/2014 Page 17 of 37 tax as it is on capital account and is required to be adjusted in the year of actual repayment of loan from the actual cost of asset. To this extent, the direction of the CIT(A) is modified and the grounds

SHANKARE GOWDA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Shankare Gowda No.2314/A/1681/A, Behind Bescom Office Subhash Nagara Ito Nelamangala Vs. Ward 4(3)(3) Bengaluru Rural 562 123 Bengaluru Karnataka Pan No : Bozpg9856G Appellant Respondent

section 48(i) of the Act, expenses incurred wholly or exclusively in connection with the transfer of immovable property ShankareGowda, Bengaluru Rural Page 4 of 15 do not include compensation paid on account of cancellation of agreement and hence amount of Rs.3,68,21,168/- was added back to the returned income on account of disallowed cost of improvement

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

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. V. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.694/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. Sri V. Madhusudhan Reddy, 502, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038. ….. Respondent. Pan Abipv 7234L Appellant By : Shri G.R. Reddy, Cit (D.R) Respondent By : Ms. Preethi S. Patel, Advocate. Date Of Hearing : 6.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 9.10.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.4.2.2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, An Individual Deriving Income From Salaries, House Property & Money Lending, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2007-08 On 24.10.2007 Declaring Loss Of Rs.15,32,350. The Return Was Processed & The Case Was Subsequently Taken Up For Scrutiny.

capital gains on the transfer of shares held by the assessee in M/s. Nutrine Confectionary and Sweets Pvt Ltd.. In pursuance thereof, the Assessing Officer, passed an order of assessment for Assessment Year 2007-08 under Section 143(3) rws 263 of the Act dt.14.3.2013, wherein the Assessing Officer determined the assessee's income at Rs.15,77,90,168

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. KAPTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

168 (Guj) 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the assessee borrowed loan as long term unsecured loan at Rs.2,55,35,871/ This amount has been waived in the assessment year under consideration. The assessee has taken this amount as income in the Profit & Loss account. However, while computing income