SHRI VANKADARI CHINNA REDDEPPA CHETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains tax, in the impugned appeal, the very same transactions have been considered as business income. The same approach was adopted for the same property / project for AY 2011-12. This is a contradiction to the Revenue's own position in the ld. AO's order under section 143(3) of the Act. The search assessment

PRADIP KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(7), HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD

The Appeal is allowed and addition is restricted to the extent of Rs

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Pradip Kumar Roy, Flat Number B705, The Income Tax Officer, Mantri Tranquil, Ward-5(3)(7), Off Kanakapura Road, Gubbalala, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 061. Pan: Acxpr1547G Appellant Respondent

237 ITR 570 (SC)). 3. The addition results in double taxation, as the AO has already accepted the computation of long-term capital gain on the full sale price of ₹ 61,00,000/-(net of cost & investment u/s 54), and simultaneously treated part of the same receipt as unexplained money, which is contradictory and impermissible in law. Reliance

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

section\n2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS.\n3.20 He also submitted that merely because T Nadakrishna has\nreflected the above transaction in his income-tax return as being\nexempt, does not imply that the UAFS results in income under the\nAct. in this regard, reliance is placed on the well-settled principles\nthat taxation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE vs. NADAKRISHNA THIMMAIAH, BANGALORE

section\n2(47)(v) of the Act would not apply to the UAFS.\n3.20 He also submitted that merely because T Nadakrishna has\nreflected the above transaction in his income-tax return as being\nexempt, does not imply that the UAFS results in income under the\nAct. in this regard, reliance is placed on the well-settled principles\nthat taxation

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

Capital Gains’. After satisfying himself on the above issue, the assessing officer issued another notice u/s. 142(1) dated 25.11.2016 seeking details of deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act. The assessing officer has requested for approval of the Pr. CIT for converting the case from limited to complete scrutiny. The approval was communicated to assessing officer on 29.11.2016. However

CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gains”. Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore Page 5 of 14 3.2 Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 4. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on that ground that in the present case as there is not even Sanction Plan

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

gain earned. He submits that the sum of Rs. 1,81,03,143/– is the undisputed sale consideration received by the assessee which was deposited in the non-resident external account with the federal bank received from the buyer Dr Gopalan. Out of that sum the sum of Rs 1,60,00,000/- was deposited for opening non-resident external

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

237 taxman 728. Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue brought to our notice that decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Lancy Constructions (supra) is no longer held to be a good law by subsequent bench of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs GMR Energy Ltd. (Supra). Be that

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

237 taxman 728. Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue brought to our notice that decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Lancy Constructions (supra) is no longer held to be a good law by subsequent bench of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs GMR Energy Ltd. (Supra). Be that

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

237 taxman 728. Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue brought to our notice that decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Lancy Constructions (supra) is no longer held to be a good law by subsequent bench of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs GMR Energy Ltd. (Supra). Be that

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

237 taxman 728. Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue brought to our notice that decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Lancy Constructions (supra) is no longer held to be a good law by subsequent bench of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs GMR Energy Ltd. (Supra). Be that

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

237 taxman 728. Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue brought to our notice that decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Lancy Constructions (supra) is no longer held to be a good law by subsequent bench of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs GMR Energy Ltd. (Supra). Be that

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

237 taxman 728. Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue brought to our notice that decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Lancy Constructions (supra) is no longer held to be a good law by subsequent bench of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs GMR Energy Ltd. (Supra). Be that

DN SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18 Dn Solutions (India) Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1)(3), No.82, Jakkur Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore. Hobli Bangalore-560 064. Pan – Aafcd 7715 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashik Shah & Sri Vinay Jain, Cas Revenue By : Shri Neha Sahay, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Shri Prakash Chand Yadavthe Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 17/01/2024 In Din No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250/2023-24/1059828155(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee, M/S Dn Solution India Private Limited Formerly Known As Doosan Machine Tools India Private Limited Is A Company Incorporated On July 05, 2016 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Parts & Spares Used In Machine Tools & Other Business Support Service Activities. 3. The Assessee Fled Its Return Of Income For Year Under Consideration On 29/11/2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.18,58,390/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny After Issuing Page 2 Of 8 Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Made 4 Additions Mentioned As Under:-

capital, gain offered by individual assessee in the respective hand, the same transaction cannot be doubted in the hands of purchaser. On this count also, we find force in the argument of Ld, A.R. that AO not established that the main purpose of transfer of such asset was reduction of liability to income tax by claiming extra depreciation on enhanced

SHIVABASAPPA KARIYAPPANAVAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

237, the\nexpression “Compensation for termination of employment used in section\n17(3)(i) of the Act refers to any payment made, whether under a legal liability\nor voluntarily, to compensate or act as a solatium fot the loss of employment\nsuffered by the employee. If the object of the payment is unrelated to the\nrelation between the employer

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

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

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

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

237 (Bang.) ♦ Electronic for Imaging India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [ITA No. 1171/Bang/2010), dated 31-1-2012] It was finally submitted that companies having turnover more than Rs. 200 crores ought to be rejected as not comparable with the Assessee. 16. The ld. DR, on the other hand pointed out that even the assessee in its own TP study