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 68 of the Act. 21. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 47,82,937/-. 22. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided

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 68 of the Act. 21. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 47,82,937/-. 22. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided

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 68 of the Act. 21. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 47,82,937/-. 22. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided

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 68 of the Act. 21. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 47,82,937/-. 22. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided

SRI. THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 8(1), BANGALORE

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

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

section 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 ITA No.101/Bang/2020. Sri.Thayappa Balakrishna. 10. The appellant craves 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. 11. For these and other

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

SMT. K.R.YASHODHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

234C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs

SMT.UMA NARENDRA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

capital gain as determined by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is excessive, unreasonable and the same is liable to be deleted in toto. 9. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B & 234C

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

capital gain from the sale of shares and further erred in not adjudicating on this crucial issue by holding that this is academic in nature 7.5 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making the addition, by making a frivolous observation that there is nothing on record to show that the copy

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. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer on account of alleged payments made by the appellant on purchase of property amounting to Rs 2,00,00,000/- by relying on agreement to sell dated 18/05/2006. This agreement to sell was not registered and subsequently revised. The action of authorities

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. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer on account of alleged payments made by the appellant on purchase of property amounting to Rs 2,00,00,000/- by relying on agreement to sell dated 18/05/2006. This agreement to sell was not registered and subsequently revised. The action of authorities

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. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer on account of alleged payments made by the appellant on purchase of property amounting to Rs 2,00,00,000/- by relying on agreement to sell dated 18/05/2006. This agreement to sell was not registered and subsequently revised. The action of authorities

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. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer on account of alleged payments made by the appellant on purchase of property amounting to Rs 2,00,00,000/- by relying on agreement to sell dated 18/05/2006. This agreement to sell was not registered and subsequently revised. The action of authorities

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. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer on account of alleged payments made by the appellant on purchase of property amounting to Rs 2,00,00,000/- by relying on agreement to sell dated 18/05/2006. This agreement to sell was not registered and subsequently revised. The action of authorities

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. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer on account of alleged payments made by the appellant on purchase of property amounting to Rs 2,00,00,000/- by relying on agreement to sell dated 18/05/2006. This agreement to sell was not registered and subsequently revised. The action of authorities

SRI. N.G. CHANDRA REDDY (HUF),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

capital gains on the joint development by adopting the fair market value of the project as on the date of the joint development agreement under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. [5] Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCITIDG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest

MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

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

capital gains tax under Section 45 of the Act could not be levied for this Assessment Year.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "2(47)(v)", "53A", "45", "234A", "234B", "234C

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

capital gains assessed for the assessment year 2006-07 was misconceived and liable to be deleted. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] failed to Page 3 of 37 appreciate the consideration for the transfer of undivided interest in land upon joint development ought to have been determined based on the guideline value of the extent