IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

SRI. B.T. DAYANANDA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Gorodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

195 ITR 386;  CIT vs RV Gupta reported in 258 ITR 261 Ld.AR submitted that, in facts narrated hereinabove, sale transaction entered into by assessee cannot be treated as adventure in nature of trade, as per section 2 (13) of the Act, and therefore, sale consideration received from sale of said property, cannot be considered as business income. ITANo.134-135/Bang/2012 A.Y.2004-05

SRI. B.T. DAYANANDA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Gorodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

195 ITR 386;  CIT vs RV Gupta reported in 258 ITR 261 Ld.AR submitted that, in facts narrated hereinabove, sale transaction entered into by assessee cannot be treated as adventure in nature of trade, as per section 2 (13) of the Act, and therefore, sale consideration received from sale of said property, cannot be considered as business income. ITANo.134-135/Bang/2012 A.Y.2004-05

SHRI. DEV KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2016-17

195 ITR 28 (Bom), Rustom Spinners Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Ors. (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) and CIT vs. J. Dalmia (1984) 149 ITR 215 (Del). 12. The Assessee also contended that the single or isolated transaction of relinquishment of right under an agreement to acquire immovable property cannot be regarded

M/S NITESH ESTATES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

capital gain reported in his return of income. As we have pointed out the transaction took place in the A.Y. 2011-12 and the TDS liability u/s 195 of the Act also arose in the A.Y. under considerationas payment is chargeable to tax. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no relevance if the vendor does not have

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains that are derived from the export. There cannot be any doubt that interest income earned by members credit co-operative society can said to be “attributable to” the business of providing credit facilities to its members. Kindly note that the deduction u/s. 80P is not with respect to an activity but with reference to business as a whole

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-15, Bangalore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-15, Bangalore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-15, Bangalore

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

capital loss under section 94(7) of the Act ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 2.2 On appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Delhi, disposed off the same; vide order dated 23.03.2017, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Both Revenue and the assessee, being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-15, Bangalore

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

2) (2.1 to 2.7) 7. The assessee had earned dividend income of Rs.19,00,000 in the previous year relevant to the impugned AY 2012-13. The assessee claimed the same as exempt under section 10(34) of the I.T.Act. The AO in the impugned assessment order has made disallowance of Rs.1,31,50,663 under section

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered