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 50B, no indexation benefit is available on cost of acquisition, i.e., net worth. 28. Before and after effecting slump sale, the Assessee entered into some ancillary transactions which had tax implications. The issue raised in Grd.No.18 to 20 of the modified grounds emanate from those ancillary transactions. IT(TP) A No. 270/Bang/2021 Tyco Fire and Security India Pvt.Ltd

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

197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section

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

197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section

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

197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section

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

197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

capital gain the assessee decided to buy a site and construct a house under the provisions of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee purchased a site developed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) from the site allotee Shri. Ravikumar N and others at Arkavathi Layout, SiteNo. 196 and 197

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

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

capital gains due to excess claim of cost of acquisition to the extent of Rs.20,50,216 and (ii) Deleting the disallowance of Rs.6,70,40,704 towards the claim of exemption under section 54B of the Act, holding that the assessee was entitled to this exemption, which has been unjustifiably denied. 3.6 Aggrieved by this order

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 & TPS , BAGALKOT vs. SHRI PRABHAYYA BASAYYA SARAGANACHANI , BAGALKOT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. Prabhayya Basayya Saragachari, At. Muchakhandi Tq & Ward 1 & Tps, Dist. – Bagalkot – 587 102. Bagalkot. Pan : Doips 6443 L Appellant Respondent

capital asset and cannot be taxed under section 56(2)(viii) relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC) which was applicable on the issue prior to A.Y. 2010-11 before the amendment to section 56 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (3) The leanred CIT(Appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), DHARWAD vs. SHRI VINAYAK HARI PALLED , HUBBALLI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodia

Capital gain” arising from the transfer of agricultural land, shall be exempted, where : 1. Such land is situate in any area referred to in, item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2 2. Such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3, SHIVAMOGGA

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri A.K.Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Lakshmamma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Purdal Road, Ward-3, Gadikoppa, Shivamogga-577 201 Shivamogga-577 205 Pan No: Akkpl 6281 A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : K.R.Narayana, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.3.2019 Of The Cit(Appeals), Davangere, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Facts & Circumstances Under Which This Appeal Arise For 2. Consideration Are That The Assessee Owned Agricultural Lands Measuring 6.8 Acres In Malligenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk Which Was Compulsorily Acquired By The Special Land Acquisition Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Slao”], Under The Provisions Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Vide Notification Dated 22.9.2000. Aggrieved By The Award As Originally Passed Awarding Compensation For The Land Acquired By The Govt., Page 2 Of 12

Capital gain” arising from the transfer of agricultural land, shall be exempted, where : 1. Such land is situate in any area referred to in, item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2 2. Such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes