SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 [D]\n14,60,95,303\n54,28,86,124\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings

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

section 47(xiii) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition made under the head capital gains and in respect of the ground No.6, which relates to the levy of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) had remitted the issue to the file of AO for recomputing

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", "133A", "142(1)", "143(2)", "251

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

gains of such transfer of capital assets does not fall on the erstwhile firm. This decision is wholly against the revenue. The revenue placed on the decision of the CIT v. Mansukh Dyeing & Printing Mills [2022] 145 taxmann.com 151/[2023] 290 Taxman 354/[2022] 449 ITR 439 (SC)/2022 SCC Online SC 1618 The facts of the case have been

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

gains of such transfer of capital assets does not fall on the erstwhile firm. This decision is wholly against the revenue. The revenue placed on the decision of the CIT v. Mansukh Dyeing & Printing Mills [2022] 145 taxmann.com 151/[2023] 290 Taxman 354/[2022] 449 ITR 439 (SC)/2022 SCC Online SC 1618 The facts of the case have been

RANGARAJ ROHINI,INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE 2(1) BANGALORE, KORMANGALA BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

capital gains to Rs. 1,11,26,626/- (from Rs. 64,86,375/- claimed by the assessee). As such, the excess indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 46,40,251/- was disallowed by the AO and added back to the returned income of the assessee. 5. The assessee filed objections before the ld. DRP, which upheld the AO's decision

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

Capital Gain of Rs.6,29,50,400/- along with income from house property of Rs.4,97,000 and income from other sources at Rs.1,56,504/-, the total income was determined at Rs.6,34,43,904/-. 8. Against all these four assessment orders, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) in terms of amendment to section 251

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

Capital Gain of Rs.6,29,50,400/- along with income from house property of Rs.4,97,000 and income from other sources at Rs.1,56,504/-, the total income was determined at Rs.6,34,43,904/-. 8. Against all these four assessment orders, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) in terms of amendment to section 251

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

Capital Gain of Rs.6,29,50,400/- along with income from house property of Rs.4,97,000 and income from other sources at Rs.1,56,504/-, the total income was determined at Rs.6,34,43,904/-. 8. Against all these four assessment orders, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) in terms of amendment to section 251

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

Capital Gain of Rs.6,29,50,400/- along with income from house property of Rs.4,97,000 and income from other sources at Rs.1,56,504/-, the total income was determined at Rs.6,34,43,904/-. 8. Against all these four assessment orders, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) in terms of amendment to section 251

NAGARAJU MUNIYAPPA ,KAGGALIPURA POST, KANAKAPU BADE KATTE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gains to the file of the AO. This results in a appellate order, where part of the assessment stands affirmed and part is restored for fresh adjudication. Such an approach, in our considered . Page 6 of 7 view, does not align with the legislative scheme of section 251

GOVINDAPPA JAYARAM DODDIAH (HUF),KODAGU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseen Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

251. PAN: AAGHG7641P Assessee by : Ms. H.D. Thejaswini, CA Revenue by : Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29-08-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13-11-2024 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER The appeals in ITA No. 1283/Bang/2024 & C.O. No. 31/Bang/2024 are the appeals filed by the assessee in respect of the A.Y. 2021-22 and the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MADIKERI vs. GOVINDAPPA JAYARAM DODDAIAH , MADAPURA, KODAGU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseen Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

251. PAN: AAGHG7641P Assessee by : Ms. H.D. Thejaswini, CA Revenue by : Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29-08-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13-11-2024 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER The appeals in ITA No. 1283/Bang/2024 & C.O. No. 31/Bang/2024 are the appeals filed by the assessee in respect of the A.Y. 2021-22 and the revenue

VIJAY SRINIVAS BOBBA,INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Vijay Srinivas Bobba, Vs. Dcit, Flat No.502, Indraprastha Ruhe, Circle – 2(2)(1), Pattandur Agrahara Village, Bengaluru. Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aitpb 9536 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Prashanth G. S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024

capital gain during the course of assessment proceedings (on 25.01.2021). The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, vide order dated 27.03.2021. In the said assessment completed, the AO did not accept the contention of the assessee that it is entitled to adopt higher value of cost

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

251 including Rs. 52,10,92,957 on account of foreign tax credit in respect of taxes presently under dispute with Australian tax authorities (ATO)) in respect of income on which deduction under section 10AA has been claimed. 4.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that foreign tax credit in respect of income on which deduction under section

HARI MOHAN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gain. But the same was disallowed by the AO on the ground that there was no supporting evidence furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 6. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) reiterated

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

251 including Rs.\n52,10,92,957 on account of foreign tax credit in respect of taxes presently\nunder dispute with Australian tax authorities (ATO)) in respect of income on\nwhich deduction under section 10AA has been claimed.\n\n4.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that foreign tax credit\nin respect of income on which deduction under

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