T.D.RAJAN vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

Capital Gains”. While deciding the said question of law the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has observed in para-3 as under; “3.We have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records. The facts of the case are as under; The respondent-assessee is an agriculturist for last many decades. He had purchased about 41 acres

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. (4) This section applies to - any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. (4) This section applies to - any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. (4) This section applies to - any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

gains from business, which consisted income/loss of all the projects, eligible as well as normal projects undertaken by assessee. 2.2 The Ld.AO was of the opinion that, assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) only to the extent of Rs.19,95,90,524/-, as against claim of assessee at Rs.29,03,88,814/-. The Ld.AO however discounted

M/S. ATRIA CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

260A of the Act, the appeal from the order of the ITAT could be entertained by the High Court if it is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law. In the case on hand, the assessee filed returns for the assessment year 2011-12. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued

MR.ZAMIR MIRZA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazshri Zamir Mirza, Flat No.4A, Iv Floor, Mayfair Apartments No.31, Berlie Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Acapm2850L. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1(1), Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.Y Ningoji Rao, C.A Respondent By : Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -10-2017 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz:

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 27/3/2014. PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 1996-97 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 2.1 Along with the appeal memo in Form No.36, the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay of 57 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal, accompanied

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

260A of the Act. Further\nafter set aside, the appeal filed by the revenue the appeal has\nbeen closed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as per order dated\n03-11-2023. Therefore, the decision relied upon by Ld. CIT(A)\nfor upholding the addition does not exists and is not\napplicable.\nb) CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd Delhi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. SRI SRINIVASAN RADHESH,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

260A is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.” 4.0 Grounds S.No.1 to 3 : Exemption under Section 54EC of the Act. 4.1 In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had disclosed income from Long Term Capital Gains

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

260A has been filed before the High Court against such order and is pending. 14. The CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow relief on the insurance premia paid on the Life Insurance cover for the housing loan customers as it was revenue in nature. 15. The CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made on account

OIKOS APARTMENTS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEAL)-5, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

capital gains in A.Y.2012-13 and the assessment was enhanced. The details of the same and the tax sought to be evaded is worked out as under: Sl. Income Rupees No. 1. Tax on returned income Nil 2. Tax on assessed income as per order u/s 66,18,780 143(3) dated 16.03.2015 3. Tax on enchantment of assessment order

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR vs. WILFRED D'SOUZA, PUTTUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Wilfred D’Souza, The Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S. Karnataka Cashew Ward - 1, Corporation & M/S. Great India Vs. Puttur. Finance Corporation, Kemmai, Puttur, D. K. – 574203. Pan : Abfpd 3142 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.10.2022

capital gains whether it is in the relevant Assessment Year or in the Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee had also raised additional ground assailing the validity of reopening of the assessment. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits as well as the issue of validity of reopening of the assessment. The assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal

M/S ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital and reserves & surplus was much more than investments made by the assessee which could yield tax free income. 41. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) has held that where the interest free funds far exceed the value of investments, it should be considered that investments have been made

M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital and reserves & surplus was much more than investments made by the assessee which could yield tax free income. 41. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) has held that where the interest free funds far exceed the value of investments, it should be considered that investments have been made

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

gains of any business or profession which was carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year ; 3.5.It is relevant to note from above extracted provisions that the 'previous year' in the case of newly setup business begins with the date of setting up of the business and the income thereon would be covered by provisions

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

gains of any business or profession which was carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year ; 3.5.It is relevant to note from above extracted provisions that the 'previous year' in the case of newly setup business begins with the date of setting up of the business and the income thereon would be covered by provisions

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

gains of any business or profession which was carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year ; 3.5.It is relevant to note from above extracted provisions that the 'previous year' in the case of newly setup business begins with the date of setting up of the business and the income thereon would be covered by provisions

SRI BHASKAR RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Capital expenditure does not arise. The assessee has undertaken to sell the land belonging to other person and accordingly he has entered into an agreement to sell the land with a person named Shri D.K.Sharma, admittedly, as representative of the owner of the land. In our view, the above said activities carried on by the assessee can only considered