M/S ACCIONA WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

gain on purchase by company of its own shares or other specified securities. In this regard, he submitted that section 46A is not a charging section and charging section is section 45 and therefore section 47(iv) is applicable in the present case. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata investigated transactions in 84 such penny stock shares quoted on BSE and examined on oath a large number of brokers, directors of companies that finally purchased the shares, the promoters of Penny stock companies, the entry operators who managed the dummy companies involved in price rigging

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata investigated transactions in 84 such penny stock shares quoted on BSE and examined on oath a large number of brokers, directors of companies that finally purchased the shares, the promoters of Penny stock companies, the entry operators who managed the dummy companies involved in price rigging

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata investigated transactions in 84 such penny stock shares quoted on BSE and examined on oath a large number of brokers, directors of companies that finally purchased the shares, the promoters of Penny stock companies, the entry operators who managed the dummy companies involved in price rigging

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata investigated transactions in 84 such penny stock shares quoted on BSE and examined on oath a large number of brokers, directors of companies that finally purchased the shares, the promoters of Penny stock companies, the entry operators who managed the dummy companies involved in price rigging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

capital gains amounting to Rs.44,931,206/- arising on slump sale of Splash division). The return of income filed by the Assessee for AY 2013-14 was selected for scrutiny and notice under section

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that "There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above noted factors, including

SRI. M N SHESHAGIRI,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

gain amount under section 54F(4) of the Act has to be charged u/s 45 as income of the assessee after the expiry of three years from the date of sale of capital asset. 7. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Coming to the allowability of deduction

THIMMAREDDY KRISHNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2006-07

206 u/s. 54F with regard to long term capital gain. 6. With regard to exemption u/s. 54B of the Act, we find that the reason for rejection by the CITA is that assessee has not filed revised return of income before the AO. The assessee relied on the order of Tribunal in the case of Rakesh Singh v. ACIT

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section. 7 IT(TP)A No.505-508 & CO 135/Bang/2015 M/s.Cisco Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to compute deduction u/s 10A in the above manner by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s Tata

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section. 7 IT(TP)A No.505-508 & CO 135/Bang/2015 M/s.Cisco Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to compute deduction u/s 10A in the above manner by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s Tata

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

gains from business or profession. The sub-clause (iii) of section 36(1) and proviso to the sub-clause reads as under: ‘(iii) the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession’ Provided that any amount of the interest paid, in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset