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

S.K. PROPERTIES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2007-08

172/-. While doing so, the learned Assessing Officer had not accepted the method of recognizing the income adopted by the appellant in respect of sale of plots. The appellant recognized revenue only in the year in which the plots were sold and registration of conveyance deed. The Assessing Officer is of the view that the revenue should be recognized

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced the “Post Search Block Assessment Scheme” in respect of any search under Section 132A or requisition under Section 132A made after 31.05.2003. CBDT explained these provisions through circular dated 5.9.2003, which is reported in (2003) 263 ITR (St) 62. The said circular

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced the “Post Search Block Assessment Scheme” in respect of any search under Section 132A or requisition under Section 132A made after 31.05.2003. CBDT explained these provisions through circular dated 5.9.2003, which is reported in (2003) 263 ITR (St) 62. The said circular

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced the “Post Search Block Assessment Scheme” in respect of any search under Section 132A or requisition under Section 132A made after 31.05.2003. CBDT explained these provisions through circular dated 5.9.2003, which is reported in (2003) 263 ITR (St) 62. The said circular

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. B. SUDHAKAR PAI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gain and therefore, the holding period of the lands was less than 3 years in majority of the cases. We further note that the lands in question were sold in terms of the agreement of sale dated 1/04/2005. There was a condition under clause 3 of the agreement that the buyer would buy the property only if the Seller would

RAMANAMURTHY MATHOD SRINIVASMURTHY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

gain and he stated in his letter that he proposed to complete the short term capital gain/loss as against long term capital gains/loss computed by the assessee. On furnishing necessary details of assessee, he was convinced and came to conclusion that the impugned transfer of property resulted in long term capital loss and same was allowed

M/S SUBEX LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

172,873 being 1/5th of INR 5,864,364 (as computed above) Excess deduction claimed under section 35D 112,486,457 14. The gist of the CIT’s calculation as above is :- (1) that deduction u/s.35D(3)(b) is calculated on the basis of 5% of capital employed and Sec.35D(3)(a) will not apply because the acquisition

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, JAPAN

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

M/S. HANUMANTHAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gain arises out of compulsory acquisition of land by KIADB for BMRCL project is not taxable though it was acquired under KIAD Act, 1966. The CIT(A) though observed that the assessee cannot make fresh claim without filing return of income, he decided the issue on merit also, by dismissing the claim of the assessee. Being

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

172 DTR 261 (Delhi), (2018) 68 ITR 58 (Delhi) with ITA Nos 2558/2012 and 2044 and 2045/2014 dated 20.11.2018, the ITAT dismissed the appeals of Spaze Towers Pvt Ltd, thereby upholding the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non- disclosure of income. These penalties were based on the company's failure

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains. The AO also pointed out that as per the original debenture purchase agreement, the holder of debentures was entitled to a coupon payment at 13.75%. However, no such coupon or interest income was realized or considered at the time of redemption. The assessee’s claim that waiver of interest was based on an informal agreement was found