NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains in construction of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of Section 54 of the Act.” 7.3 Further, it is worthwhile here to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax IT(IT)A No.235/Bang/2025 Navjyoti Sharma, Bangalore Page 11 of 14 v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy reported

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

gains arising out of the transfer of the said property; which is 5,73,75,000. His share of it, is about k3,48,75,000. x. The assessee contends that since the deemed transfer of schedule A property has taken place on 08.04.2013, the revision of guideline values effected on 12.08.2013 by the State Government resulted in guideline value

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

capital gain and thefore the machinery provisions fail and therefore the charge itself fails. 23. Consequently, the relevant grounds of appeal 2 to 3 of the assessee are dismissed. 24. Ground Nos.4 and 5 can be decided together as they arise under identical facts and circumstances. We have already seen that assessee received a sum of Rs.2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

SIR ANIL DEV ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assesseee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013 – 14 Shree Anil Dev, C/O M/S Suresh & Co., Chartered Accountants, Dcit Circle – 2 (2) (1), #43/16, ‘Srinidhi’, 1St Floor, Vs. Bengaluru Surveyor Street, Basavangudi, Bengaluru - 560004 Pan : Aeppd4791L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree Nitish Ranjan, C. A. Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A) – 10 Bengaluru Dated 10.01.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds But Learned Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That As Per These Grounds, This Is The Only Effective Grievance Of The Assessee That The Ao & Cit (A) Were Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee For Deduction U/S 54F. Page 2 Of 14

245,47,564/- in the hands of the assessee and his wife and this is accepted by the AO also in both cases. Thereafter, he also pointed out that the resultant LTCG is also equal at Rs. 235,36,493/- in the hands of the assessee and his wife and this is also accepted by the AO in both cases

M/S.DEVON PLANTATIONS & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

245/-. The AO had not agreed to the method of computation followed by the assessee. However the AO had agreed to the method of computation of cost at 70% of the sale proceeds and indexation as on 01.04.1981 was disallowed and for the AY 2007-08, taxable capital gains income was arrived at Rs.6,89,128/- as against the loss

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

capital investment in a partnership firm cannot be considered on par with investment in equity and therefore. such investment cannot be considered as for the purpose of earning exempt income, all the more so for the reason that the profits of the partnership firm are taxed in the hands of the firm and hence, not taxed in the hands

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

capital investment in a partnership firm cannot be considered on par with investment in equity and therefore. such investment cannot be considered as for the purpose of earning exempt income, all the more so for the reason that the profits of the partnership firm are taxed in the hands of the firm and hence, not taxed in the hands

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital account transactions. We also notice that the AO has allowed the loss arising on restatement of trade debtors, trade creditors and other monetary assets. The AO has, however, disallowed the loss arising on restatement of forward contracts. 27.6 The decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Quality Engineering and software technologies P Ltd (supra) states

SHRI. PRAKASH RAMACHANDRA PRABHU,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaranshri Prakash Ramachandra Prabhu, No.308, 7Th Main, Hal #Rd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 075. Pan No.Aajpp5078N Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore Respondent

capital gain, he did not pay any tax. When the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 20-03- 2009, the exemption was not allowed to the assessee and accordingly a demand of Rs.74.10 lakhs was raised upon the assessee. According to the assessee, he did not receive the copy of intimation

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from

M/S SRI, M. GEORGE JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

capital gains from sale of shares of Rs.28,27,33,919, the appellant claimed exemption under Section 54EC for having invested Rs.50,00,000 in REC Bonds and Rs.88,98,970 as exemption under Section 54F for having purchased residential flat in Brigade Gateway, Bangalore under agreements dt.30.12.2006. The appellant had entered into an agreement for purchase of residential flat

SHRI. SANAULLA A KHAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012-13

245 from ICICI Bank @ 13.50% was taken for business purpose, not for the purpose of housing. Hence it cannot be treated to have been invested in property. Also as per the personal capital account and balance sheet, the drawing is only Rs. 8,00,000/- out of capital of Rs. 1,65,65,547. Because of the fact that

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

245, and  ACIT(TDS) vs SAP Labs India(P.)Ltd reported in (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 200 5. On the contrary, Ld.Sr.DR submitted as under: “The Respondent most respectfully submits as follows : 2. In this case, the orders under section 201 (1 )/201(1A) of the l.T.Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") were passed for the Assessment years