SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

290\n17,49,200\n40,000\nSurvey charges\nEvaluation and speculation of JD\nJD Agreement\nDesign and inspection\n11,251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n11,251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

2) NA of the Act expired on 31.03.2017 c. It can be seen from the above, that the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17 are unabated assessment years for the purpose of proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Further, for the A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2015-16, the department had initiated proceedings under section

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

2) NA of the Act expired on 31.03.2017 c. It can be seen from the above, that the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17 are unabated assessment years for the purpose of proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Further, for the A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2015-16, the department had initiated proceedings under section

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

2) NA of the Act expired on 31.03.2017 c. It can be seen from the above, that the A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17 are unabated assessment years for the purpose of proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Further, for the A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2015-16, the department had initiated proceedings under section

M/S. S I MEDIA LLP, ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

290 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits. 5. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the indexed cost of interest of ₹2,51,20,901 claimed on the borrowed money utilized for acquiring the capital asset against the capital gain

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

2)\nof the Act expired on\n31.03.2017\nNA\n\nC.\nIt can be seen from the above, that the A.Ys.2013-14 to 2016-17\nare unabated assessment years for the purpose of proceedings\nunder section 153A of the Act. Further, for the A.Ys.2013-14 and\n2015-16, the department had initiated proceedings under section\n263

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

2)\nof the Act expired on\n31.03.2017\n| NA\n\nC.\nIt can be seen from the above, that the A.Ys.2013-14 to 2016-17\nare unabated assessment years for the purpose of proceedings\nunder section 153A of the Act. Further, for the A.Ys.2013-14 and\n2015-16, the department had initiated proceedings under section\n263

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

2)\n| of the Act expired on\n| 31.03.2017\n| NA\n\nC.\nIt can be seen from the above, that the A.Ys.2013-14 to 2016-17\nare unabated assessment years for the purpose of proceedings\nunder section 153A of the Act. Further, for the A.Ys.2013-14 and\n2015-16, the department had initiated proceedings under section\n263

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

gains of such transfer of capital assets does not fall on the erstwhile firm. This decision is wholly against the revenue. The revenue placed on the decision of the CIT v. Mansukh Dyeing & Printing Mills [2022] 145 taxmann.com 151/[2023] 290 Taxman 354/[2022] 449 ITR 439 (SC)/2022 SCC Online SC 1618 The facts of the case have been

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

gains of such transfer of capital assets does not fall on the erstwhile firm. This decision is wholly against the revenue. The revenue placed on the decision of the CIT v. Mansukh Dyeing & Printing Mills [2022] 145 taxmann.com 151/[2023] 290 Taxman 354/[2022] 449 ITR 439 (SC)/2022 SCC Online SC 1618 The facts of the case have been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

2 years. Following the DRP Directions, the Ld.AO disallowed software expenses of Rs.4,51,18,32,386/- as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation on the same at 25% amounting to Rs.1,12,79,58,096/-. The net addition made after allowing depreciation amounted to Rs.3,38,38,74,290/-. 11.4 Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that the software expenses

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

2 years. Following the DRP Directions, the Ld.AO disallowed software expenses of Rs.4,51,18,32,386/- as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation on the same at 25% amounting to Rs.1,12,79,58,096/-. The net addition made after allowing depreciation amounted to Rs.3,38,38,74,290/-. 11.4 Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that the software expenses

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

290 2017-16 2,39,66,349 2016-17 - 2,42,03,649 2015-16 - 2,44,47,921 2014-15 70,56,000 2,45,32,260 2013-14 1,01,22,000 2,46,73,294 2012-13 96,80,000 2,49,91,058 2011-12 35,00,000 2,52,05,684 2010-11 - 2

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

gains of a previous year are required to be computed for the purpose of determining tax liability. The basis of taxing income is accrual of income as well as actual receipt. If for want ITA No.1245 & 1252/Bang/2015 Page 29 of 70 of necessary material crystallising the expenditure is not in existence in respect of which such income or expenses relates

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

gains of a previous year are required to be computed for the purpose of determining tax liability. The basis of taxing income is accrual of income as well as actual receipt. If for want ITA No.1245 & 1252/Bang/2015 Page 29 of 70 of necessary material crystallising the expenditure is not in existence in respect of which such income or expenses relates

MR. SHANMUGAM RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSESSEMENT CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

capital gains taxable\nunder section I I IA and 112A of the Act is bad in law under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case.\n(b) The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that the income other\nthan the income taxable under the provisions of DTAA does not exceed I\nCrore and thus the rate of surcharge ought

SHRI. M.NARENDRA KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

290/-. The Ld. AO has made an addition of Rs.1,46,94,817/- being the LTCG arising out of a Sale of Ancestral Agricultural land measuring 2 Acres 20 Guntas in Sy. No. 54, situated at Chikkanayakanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. Remaining facts similar to that as mentioned in paras 3.3 to 3.8 hereinabove. 5.4. Before this Tribunal

SHRI. M.NANDA KUMAR, L/R SMT. JAYASHREE R,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Nanda Kumar, By Lr Smt. Jayashree R, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Amnpm8080H Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri M. Narendra Kumar, No. 25, Shankamma Bldg, The Income Tax 9Th Cross, Officer, Gundappa Gowda Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Vs. Pan: Amnpm8079N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Besaganni, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-06-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-06-2023

290/-. The Ld. AO has made an addition of Rs.1,46,94,817/- being the LTCG arising out of a Sale of Ancestral Agricultural land measuring 2 Acres 20 Guntas in Sy. No. 54, situated at Chikkanayakanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. Remaining facts similar to that as mentioned in paras 3.3 to 3.8 hereinabove. 5.4. Before this Tribunal