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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Alagappa Muthiah (Huf) 34, 8Th Main, 4Th Cross Rajamahal Vilas Extension Bangalore 560 080 Pan No: Aaaha3885P Appellant

276 [B] Expenditure in relation to transfer : Betterment fee - Residential uinits Fees paid for change of land use Partition Deed Original 54,76,33,980 9,80,20,137 -1,08,69,390 153C

DCIT vs. M/S MINITECHS AEROTOOLS PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2007-08

276 and income from business of Rs.2,15,779. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 31.10.2008. There was a survey u/s. 133A of the Act conducted in the Page 7 of 12 case of M/s. VBDPL, the entity which developed the property. In the course of such survey, the Revenue came to know about

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain as declared by the assessee. 4.13 Further, recently Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. (276 Taxmann 460), wherein held that “When the AO allowed the claim of assessee after due application of mind and on proper consideration of the material available on record, the order passed

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain as declared by the assessee. 4.13 Further, recently Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. (276 Taxmann 460), wherein held that “When the AO allowed the claim of assessee after due application of mind and on proper consideration of the material available on record, the order passed

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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VECTRA CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2009-10

276,25,71,059 Less: Indexed cost of Acquisition : Rs.40,43,56,646/- = Rs.235,82,14,413/-“ Long Term Capital Gains 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal and ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee on this basis that there was no conversion from investment to stock in trade as alleged

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

gain made by the A.O. in A.Y. 2011-12. With regard to computation of STCG made in AY 2008-09, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the same citing clerical error. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeals for both the years before us. 7. The Ld A.R submitted that the AO was not correct in law in stating that

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

gain made by the A.O. in A.Y. 2011-12. With regard to computation of STCG made in AY 2008-09, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the same citing clerical error. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeals for both the years before us. 7. The Ld A.R submitted that the AO was not correct in law in stating that

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 153A, since amongst others, the additions are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, the order passed by the LAO is bad in law since the LAO has not provided an opportunity to the Appellant to cross examine certain personnel whose statements have been recorded on oath during

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE vs. NADAKRISHNA THIMMAIAH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 153A, since amongst others, the additions are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, the order passed by the LAO is bad in law since the LAO has not provided an opportunity to the Appellant to cross examine certain personnel whose statements have been recorded on oath during

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

Capital Gains’. After satisfying himself on the above issue, the assessing officer issued another notice u/s. 142(1) dated 25.11.2016 seeking details of deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act. The assessing officer has requested for approval of the Pr. CIT for converting the case from limited to complete scrutiny. The approval was communicated to assessing officer on 29.11.2016. However

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 05.02.2019. In response

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 05.02.2019. In response

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

276 | 1,41,85,547 | 24,42,94,823 | 2017-18 | 20,40,17,960 | 22,48,58,255 | 2,06,38,910 | 31,36,48,443 | 2018-19 | 43,78,88,596 | - | - | 79,79,183 | 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 05.02.2019. In response

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 05.02.2019. In response

M/S SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

gain has not been claimed in the computation of income and forms part of computing the margin as per transfer pricing provisions. The Ld.TPO is directed to consider the claim in accordance with the above view in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 (supra). 10. Ground no. 6 is in respect of interest on trade receivables