IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

Capital Gains. The AO further held that as the assessee had not offered the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as income, the undisclosed income is covered by provision of clause(b) Simplex TMC Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 17 of Section 271AAB(1A) of the Act and accordingly a penalty

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gains for AY 2008-09 should be applied for AY 2012-13, erred in adopting the cost of construction at Rs.951/- instead of Rs.1,620/-. 8. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in rejecting the valuation report submitted by the Appellant to substantiate the cost of construction. 9. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in not making

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

capital gain on the sale of same asset cannot be considered in the hands of the assessee. (iii) That the officers of the Department are duty bound to be realistic 86 correct in their approach and should not take advantage of mistakes, if any, on the part of the assessee. Cash Deposits. 4. The learned AO as well

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

271-I, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or clause (b) of subsection (1) of section or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section

BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

271 D was not exigible. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the circumstances that prompted the Appellant to receive on sale of sites cash from buyers and ought to have refrained from levying the penalty 5. On the facts the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the income declared under the head capital gain

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Income - Tax Act by disregarding the facts, evidences and reasons and merely on the basis of suspicion, presumptions and without due and independent application of mind on the generalised report of the Investigation Wing of Kolkata, in total defiance of natural justice by denying sharing of the information and evidences collected behind

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

RAHIL MAHESHKUMAR NIZAMUDDIN,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), BLR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

section 274 rws 271 of the Act as to whether the penalty proceedings is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income under the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below are not justified in levying a penalty

MRS. SUREKHA L/R OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital gains. 11. The CIT(A) and AO erred in initiating proceedings under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act for receipt or Rs.19,20,000/- in cash without Page 3 of 7 appreciating that the amendment to section 269SS prohibiting receipt of any sum in cash in relation to transfer of immovable property

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. UMA RUGMINI, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

section (3) of rule 46A of Income tax rules” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a housewife and not filed her return of income. Based on the information through the INSIGHT PORTAL, the AO had issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, seeking the details about the financial transactions undertaken by her. Before that

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAICHUR, RAICHUR vs. MARALBID PADMAVATHI, RAICHUR

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

271(1)(b) for non compliance is initiated.” 3. In pursuance to notice under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 24.04.2021 which was same as original return under section 139 of the Act. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee’s side and notices were

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

gain of INR 3,42,78,18,865, erred in treating the cost of acquisition of all the IPs (including technological IPs) as NIL as per the provisions of section 55(2) of the Act without appreciating that the said provisions do not apply to the technological IPs transferred during the year. 13. Disallowance under section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

gains that are derived from the\nexport. There cannot be any doubt that interest income earned by\nmembers credit co-operative society can said to be \"attributable to\"\nthe business of providing credit facilities to its members. Kindly\nnote that the deduction u/s.80P is not with respect to an activity but\nwith reference to business as a whole

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

271/- as against the returned income of Rs.59,29,270/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore Page 2 of 14 3. Grounds on disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F, Rs.8,00,00,001/-: a. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.8,00,00,001/- under the head 'capital gains