SRI. LAXMIDAS BAPUDAS DARBAR,BAGALKOT vs. ITO, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2006-07

4) Whether the sum of Rs.33 lakhs received by the assessee was to be assessed under the head ‘income from other sources’ or ‘capital gain’? 26. A suggestion was put to the ld. counsel for the assessee on the examination of the aforesaid questions, to which the ld. counsel for the assessee did not object. We now proceed to examine

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

4. Pursuant to Section 3.03 of the Agreement, Spreadtrum is required on a quarterly basis to Sasken with a written report reflecting all shipments of Spreadtrum Products during the quarter (“royalty report”). Spreadtrum has breached the Agreement by failing to provide a royalty report since the first quarter of 2012. Spreadtrum is ordered to provide Sasken with the required royalty

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

M/S K. MOHAN & COMPANY (EXPORTS) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

4 & 7 raised by the assessee in ITA No.1093/Bang/2009. For the reasons stated therein, the action of the revenue authorities is dismissed. 62. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee reads as follows:- “3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the taxation of long term capital gains at the rate of @0% instead of 10% under the facts

M/S. K. MOHAN & COMPANY (EXPORTS) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

4 & 7 raised by the assessee in ITA No.1093/Bang/2009. For the reasons stated therein, the action of the revenue authorities is dismissed. 62. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee reads as follows:- “3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the taxation of long term capital gains at the rate of @0% instead of 10% under the facts

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S K. MOHAN & COMPANY (EXPORTS) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

4 & 7 raised by the assessee in ITA No.1093/Bang/2009. For the reasons stated therein, the action of the revenue authorities is dismissed. 62. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee reads as follows:- “3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the taxation of long term capital gains at the rate of @0% instead of 10% under the facts

M/S K. MOHAN & COMPNAY (EXPORTS) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA 1057/B/12 is partly allowed and ITA 1103/B/12 is dismissed

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

4 & 7 raised by the assessee in ITA No.1093/Bang/2009. For the reasons stated therein, the action of the revenue authorities is dismissed. 62. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee reads as follows:- “3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the taxation of long term capital gains at the rate of @0% instead of 10% under the facts

SRI AKBER AYUB ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri Akber Ayub, No.04, Skyline Chalet, Dewan Madhavrao Road, Opp. Krishnarao Park, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan - Abopa2599R. Appellant By : Shri P Dinesh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri M.K Biju, Jcit

255(4), when there are conflicting views by different benches?" 3.2.5 The Hon’ble Madras High Court while upholding the decision of the Chennai Bench of ITAT at para 7 to 11 of its order (Supra) held as under:- “7. On a plain reading of the above said provision, we are of the view that Section 54EC

ASST.C.I.T.,MANGALORE vs. M/S SHANKAR VITTAL MOTOR CO. LTD.,, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry

255/- for the assessment year 2010-11. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 20-12-2012 declaring total income at Rs.4,24,97,188/- which includes addition income of Rs.4,83,95,449/- on account of capital gains on the transfer of immovable property situated at Attavar Village, Mangalore comprised in R.S.No.762,784,782,780/1B, 781,766,768/2

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

4 of the assessment order, where it was mentioned that the tax deducted in respect of the payment was made over to the IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 54 of 202 Government in the subsequent year and, therefore, depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred

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

4 of the assessment order, where it was mentioned that the tax deducted in respect of the payment was made over to the IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 54 of 202 Government in the subsequent year and, therefore, depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred

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

section 54F becomes applicable and no deduction u/s 54F is allowable. He pointed out that payment for this second residential property is made from this joint account only in which the wife of the assessee also deposited 50% of sale proceeds of shares Rs. 480,84,057/- and she has claimed deduction u/s 54F for purchase of the second property

M/S HOTEL WOODSIDE,MANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri. A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

255 (4) of the Act. Page 6 of 16 ITA Nos.1269 & 1270/Bang/2016 2.1. The issues on which difference of opinion arose between Hon’ble Accountant Member and Hon’ble Judicial Member, has been summed up by Hon’ble Third Member in his order as under as follows: 1. Whether the order of assessment passed under section

M/S GODHA REALTORS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

255 Long Term Capital Loss (9,818,556) Less: Long Term Capital Loss carried forward for set off in future (9,818,556) 5. The assessee was subjected to search operation u/s 132 of the Act on 05.07.2011. Accordingly the assessments of both AY 2011-12 and 2008-09 came to be reopened u/s 153A of the Act. With regard

M/S GODHA REALTORS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

255 Long Term Capital Loss (9,818,556) Less: Long Term Capital Loss carried forward for set off in future (9,818,556) 5. The assessee was subjected to search operation u/s 132 of the Act on 05.07.2011. Accordingly the assessments of both AY 2011-12 and 2008-09 came to be reopened u/s 153A of the Act. With regard

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

255 Davangere: Payment to Sodexo Cash Medical Payment to Chinnu SVC India Pvt Ltd Benefit u/s 192 Graphics u/ s 194C u s 194C Total Interest Interest Interest TDS u/s TDS TDS 201(1A) 201(1A) deductibl 201 deductible deductible e (1A) Page 6 of 74 ITA No.507 to 566 /Bang/2020