ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

5 of 24 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as follows:- “2. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had failed to fulfil the requisite conditions stipulated u/s. 54F for claiming deduction under the said

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

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

capital gain tax can be levied.\" Concluded at page 12\npara no. 31 as under.-\n\"53. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as stood prior to its\namendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a\nbanking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the\nassessee and against

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee, has arisen from the appellate order dated 07.07.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), NFAC,Delhi (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) (vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054203908(1)), for the assessment year 2011-12, which appeal before ld. CIT(A), NFAC in turn

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(Appeals) dated 22.8.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “1) The learned CIT( A) erred in passing the order in the manner which he did. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 24.08.2018 of the CIT(Appeals)-V, Bengaluru, relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. There are basically 3 issues that arise for consideration in this appeal. The first issue is with regard to the computation of capital gain on sale

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

D) Rs. 68,81,000/- 4.2 Further, the assessee against the taxable income at normal slab rate of Rs. 68,81,000/- claimed deduction under section 80G of the Act . ITA No.2194 & 2195/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 16 for Rs. 68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income of Rs. 36,78,25,370/- being taxable at special rate

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

d) Brokerage and legal charges Rs. 22,21,360 18. Thus, capital gain of Rs.5,55,31,547 was offered for taxation. In respect of Rs.5 crores for improvement, the assessee claimed an amount Page 11 of 40 of Rs.1,63,70,521 as expenses towards cost of fencing of the property. The income arising therefrom to the tune

SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

d) of section 269UA; 9. Capital asset has been defined in section 2(14) of the Act, as meaning "Property" of any kind held by the assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession. The above exhaustive definition is subject to the following exclusions like stock-in-trade, consumable stores or raw material held for the purpose

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

D-103, B-13 and villa no.15 and declared capital gains amounting to Rs. 4,74,72,475/-. It is an undisputed fact that the total cost at which the land was transferred to all the partners was Rs.2,72,00,000/- out of which the owners share being Rs.1,04,72,000/- ( 38.5%). It is also an undisputed fact

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

D-103, B-13 and villa no.15 and declared capital gains amounting to Rs. 4,74,72,475/-. It is an undisputed fact that the total cost at which the land was transferred to all the partners was Rs.2,72,00,000/- out of which the owners share being Rs.1,04,72,000/- ( 38.5%). It is also an undisputed fact

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

5 of 13 3,67,67,836 and after adjusting current years business expenses of Rs. 1,08,54,687 (including depreciation as per the I.T. Act) under the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Set off provision under section 71 of the Act), returned a total taxable Income

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 30.09.2010 of CIT(A), LTU, relating to AY 1997-98. 2. During the previous year relevant to AY 1997-98, the Assessee was engaged in the business of Manufacturing and trading. The Assessee as Page 2 of 45 part

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

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— (a) to (d) .... (e)transactional net margin method, by which,— IT(TP) A No. 270/Bang/2021 Tyco Fire and Security India Pvt.Ltd

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

17,87,795/- as Capital Gains from the above transaction in its original return of Income furnished to the Department. Subsequently, in its revised return of Income dated 15.6.2009, the assessee had admitted income of Rs.22,90,570/-, on the ground that the capital gains which arose on the sale of the said lands was wrongly offered in the original

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

d) The authorities below ought to have provided the exemption under section 54F of the Act amounting to Page 3 of 17 Rs.44,10,070/- on the facts of the case e) The authorities below failed to appreciate. that exemption claimed Wider section 54F of the Act cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay in construction of residential

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

D E R This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT’s order dated 19.01.2021 passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2013-2014. 2. Seven grounds are raised. Ground Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are regarding the issue on jurisdiction of CIT to invoking revisionary powers

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

5 of 11 7. The assessee submitted that it had utilised the capital gain for purchase of another agricultural land and paid the following sums to the following persons under agreement for sale:- a) Sale Agreement with Ramakrishna.K.C. and Amount paid to the Vendor Rs.1,45,25,000 b) Balance Due to Ramakrishna.K.C. Payable at the time of Registration

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU vs. M/S. BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order dated 30.09.2019 of CIT(A), Mysuru, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that a sum of Rs.10 Crores cannot

PRADEEP KAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Geoergeassessment Year : 2006-07

D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.02.2014 of the CIT(Appeals)-III, Bangalore inter alia on various grounds, which are as under:- 1. That the order of the authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural