K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 10/02/2015 for the AY 2007-08 by calculating the short termcapital gains on transfer of land under the Joint development agreement dated 01/03/2007 as detailed belowfor ease of reference and convenience- ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 27 of 33 Particulars Amount

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

3 of 66 8. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234-A and 234B of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled. 9. For the above and other grounds

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 69C of the Act to make adhoc addition of 3% of capital gain. The AO erred in making an addition of Rs.48,66,222/- whereas no such expenditure was incurred by the assessee. The addition is made on mere surmise and suspicion and lacks substance and evidence. The assessee relies on the following decisions wherein similar issues the additions

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 69C of the Act to make adhoc addition of 3% of capital gain. The AO erred in making an addition of Rs.48,66,222/- whereas no such expenditure was incurred by the assessee. The addition is made on mere surmise and suspicion and lacks substance and evidence. The assessee relies on the following decisions wherein similar issues the additions

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 69C of the Act to make adhoc addition of 3% of capital gain. The AO erred in making an addition of Rs.48,66,222/- whereas no such expenditure was incurred by the assessee. The addition is made on mere surmise and suspicion and lacks substance and evidence. The assessee relies on the following decisions wherein similar issues the additions

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 69C of the Act to make adhoc addition of 3% of capital gain. The AO erred in making an addition of Rs.48,66,222/- whereas no such expenditure was incurred by the assessee. The addition is made on mere surmise and suspicion and lacks substance and evidence. The assessee relies on the following decisions wherein similar issues the additions

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

234B and 234D of the Act requires to be waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 5 In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

3) of the Act is bad in law since no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO. The assessee also contended that the addition made under the head “Long Term Capital Gain” on conversion of the partnership firm into a company is also not in accordance with section 47(xiii

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstance of the case. 8. The appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 9. For these and other grounds that

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstance of the case. 8. The appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 9. For these and other grounds that

SMT.VANI SHREE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

3 of 23 12. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant is entitled to point out the mistake in the assessment proceedings and claim that the long term capital gains is required to be charged to tax in AY 2012-13 as against declared by the appellant in AY 2015-16 on the facts

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

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

gain if there is an increase in profits and the whole-time Directors are remunerated for that. At the risk of repetition, it is stated that this has been approved by the shareholders who are the ultimate authority in approving the Directors remuneration as per the Companies Act and overseen by the NRC. Subsequently, in the meeting held