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

Section 45[5A] of the Act, has been\ninserted that the date of occupancy certificate is relevant for\ndetermining the taxation of capital gains. The appellant has relied\nupon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of N.A. Harris in\nITA No.988/Bang/2018 dated 15/02/2021 specifically para [33] on\npage 200 to 202. Appellant also relies upon

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

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

274\n4. Kilburn Properties Limited v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 17 ITR 134\n5. Ezra Propritary Estate Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 18 ITR 762\n6. Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 33 ITR 341\n7. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (SC) 57 ITR 306\n8. CIT vs. Bhavnagar Trust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

274 of the Act on 27.12.2017 and finally after hearing the assessee, the ld. AO levied penalty at Rs.1,10,08,720/- by invoking the provisions of explanation (5A) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. AO in the assessment order mentioned that the assessee declared income of Rs.23,56,46,839/- under the head “income from

MALLIKARJUNAIAH ADVEESHAIAH HULLUKUNTE,BENGALURU vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

section 54D of ₹3,18,28,120 and construction cost of ₹1 crore. 4. The AO disallowed the deduction of ₹1 crore claimed as cost of construction. According to the AO, the amount was utilized only after the due date of filing of return. The assessee had not deposited the amount in the Capital Gain Scheme Account before

SMT. VANI RAMACHANDRAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusmt. Vani Ramachandran Vs The Income Tax Officer-3(2)(1) 40, Vishram, 4Th Main Bmtc Building Kalyan Nagar Koramangala Bangalore 560072 Bangalore 560095 Pan – Ajtpr2276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Dated 03.11.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds & Also Additional Grounds. However, The Solitary Issue That Was Argued By The Learned A.R. Was Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.25,000/- Imposed Under Section 271A Of The Act.

274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act, the copy of Demat account statement for the relevant period, copy of the approval issued under Section 151 of the Act, copy of reasons recorded, etc. The learned A.R. submitted that as against the addition of Rs.13,93,176/- under Section 69A of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal and the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain. The deeming provision under Section 50\nC (1) of the Act is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable\nproperty may have various attributes, charges. encumbrances,\nlimitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not\ntake into consideration the attributes of the property for determining\nthe fair market value in the condition, the property is offered

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

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

capital gains under section 48 of the Act subject to the condition that in case depreciation 7 Assessment Year 2020-2021 was obtained by the assessee in relation to such goodwill prior to the assessment year 2021-22, then the depreciation so obtained by the assessee shall be reduced from the amount of the purchase price of the goodwill. Therefore

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

section 269SS of the Act. The order of the assessment dated 06/12/2019 is very cryptic and only affirm that after verifying the details filed, the assessment is completed accepting the income declared. We also take a note of the fact that penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act were not initiated by the AO on or before the completion

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

274, inter alia, considered the followed question of law for adjudication. (IV) Whether losses of other 10A Units or non 10A Units can be set off against the profits of 10A Units before deductions under Section 10A are effected? The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision held as under - “15. Sub-section 4 of Section 10A which provides

DN SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18 Dn Solutions (India) Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1)(3), No.82, Jakkur Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore. Hobli Bangalore-560 064. Pan – Aafcd 7715 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashik Shah & Sri Vinay Jain, Cas Revenue By : Shri Neha Sahay, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Shri Prakash Chand Yadavthe Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 17/01/2024 In Din No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250/2023-24/1059828155(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee, M/S Dn Solution India Private Limited Formerly Known As Doosan Machine Tools India Private Limited Is A Company Incorporated On July 05, 2016 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Parts & Spares Used In Machine Tools & Other Business Support Service Activities. 3. The Assessee Fled Its Return Of Income For Year Under Consideration On 29/11/2017 Declaring An Income Of Rs.18,58,390/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny After Issuing Page 2 Of 8 Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Made 4 Additions Mentioned As Under:-

274 and contented that when the revenue has accepted the purchase price in the hands of recipient then it is not legally tenable to disallow in the hands of payee. 12. The ld. DR contended that there were no tangible or intangible assets with the assessee and hence the claim of the assessee i.e depreciation on goodwill is not allowable

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

capital gain arises when a person purchases a property and without prejudice the numbers adopted by the officer have no basis and consequently the entire addition of Rs. 1,03,36,94,904/- requires to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. d. Without prejudice, the income assessed is highly excessive and without factual foundation

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\n\nC. The Third issue

EVRY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2013-14

gains or losses arising on external commercial borrowings used to acquire capital assets are on capital account after the amendment to section 43A of the Act. The Hon’ble Court observed that where ECB funds are used for acquiring capital assets, the adjustment on account of exchange fluctuation has to be made to the actual cost of the assets

AUTODESK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

274 r.w.s 270A of the Act.” 2. The Assessee is engaged in the business of providing marketing, technical support and research and development services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The assessee filed the return of income for assessment year (AY) 2018-19 on 30.11.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.255,636,680. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny