SMT. SAVITRI KADUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

section 47. Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 26. The decision in the case of Tribhuvandas G.Patel (supra) is a case where the deed of reconstitution specifically referred to release of rights of the outgoing partners in the assets of the partnership and further

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

Capital Gain”. Page 2 of 31 3. The facts and circumstances under which the aforesaid issue arises for consideration are that the assessee is in the business of rendering software development services (SWD services) and software development products (SWD products). This would be evident from Resources from Operations as shown in the profit and loss A/c which as described

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains and not income from business arising from adventure in the nature of trade:- ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s. ETA Star Infopark, Bangalore Page 15 of 73 (i) CIT v. Razia Sulaiman, ITA No. 412 of 2007 dated 19.09.2011 (Karn. HC) (ii) CIT vs Smt.Suparna Mahesh ITA No.3232 of 2005 dated 8-2- 2011 (Karn.HC) (iii) CIT v. M/s. Bagmane Developers

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains and not income from business arising from adventure in the nature of trade:- ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s. ETA Star Infopark, Bangalore Page 15 of 73 (i) CIT v. Razia Sulaiman, ITA No. 412 of 2007 dated 19.09.2011 (Karn. HC) (ii) CIT vs Smt.Suparna Mahesh ITA No.3232 of 2005 dated 8-2- 2011 (Karn.HC) (iii) CIT v. M/s. Bagmane Developers

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

282 ITR (AT) 211 (Mumbai) and Dr.Girish M Shah. The provisions of section 54 of the Act which was considered by the Mumbai Benches of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the cases of Mrs. Prema P. Shah and Sanjiv P. Shah and Dr. Girish M. Shah are in pari material with section 54F of the Act and therefore these

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

capital gains and income from other sources. The scheme of the TDS provisions applies not only to the amount paid, which bears the character of "income" such as salaries, dividends, interest on securities etc. but the said provisions also apply to gross sums, the whole of which may not be income or profits in the hands of the recipient, such

INCOME-TAX OFFICER,BANGALORE vs. SHRI. RAMAKRISHNA M.J, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A No.1326/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2010-11)

282/-. The assessee deposited the entire proceeds of Rs.1,00,80,000/- in the capital gains savings account on 09.02.2010 and subsequently paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as commission on sale proceeds. Thereafter the assessee purchased new property ITA.1326/Bang/2016 Page - 4 consisting of both land and building located at No.733, I Block, 6th cross, Valagerhalli Extension, Jnanabharathi Layout, Bengaluru

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains tax liability. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal to CIT(A) who upheld the action of the AO. 36. The Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Dharamshibhai Somani v. ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd. – Trib.)(SMC)](ITA No. 1237/Ahd/2013; AY 2008- 09; order dated 30.9.2016)(Ahd Trib SMC) held that - The present amendment, being

GANGANAGHATTA SHANKARAPPA RANGANATHA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyganganaghatta Shankarappa Ito, Ward - 5(3)(2) Ranganatha Bmtc Building, 80 Ft Road No. 120 Hoodi Apartments 6Th Block, Koramangala Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Cunningham Road Bengaluru 560052 Pan – Aiepg1800C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Lakshmi, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshavdubey, J.M.

capital gains. The return was then processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 15.04.2015. The assessee was employed with M/s. Gem Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. during the FY 2013-14 as observed by the AO. Thereafter the case was selected under CASS and notices were issued calling for details in support of the return filed by the assessee.During the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

capital investment in a partnership firm cannot be considered on par with investment in equity and therefore. such investment cannot be considered as for the purpose of earning exempt income, all the more so for the reason that the profits of the partnership firm are taxed in the hands of the firm and hence, not taxed in the hands

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

capital investment in a partnership firm cannot be considered on par with investment in equity and therefore. such investment cannot be considered as for the purpose of earning exempt income, all the more so for the reason that the profits of the partnership firm are taxed in the hands of the firm and hence, not taxed in the hands

OUTSOURCEPARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

section 14A is to be invoked, disallowances are to made as per Rule 8D of the Rules. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the AO. 26. Ground No. 4 relate to the Transfer Pricing adjustments. In this regard, our attention was invited to the fact that for determining the ALP for the international transactions

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. OUTSOURCE PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

section 14A is to be invoked, disallowances are to made as per Rule 8D of the Rules. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the AO. 26. Ground No. 4 relate to the Transfer Pricing adjustments. In this regard, our attention was invited to the fact that for determining the ALP for the international transactions

SHAMANNA REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Shamanna Reddy, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chowdeshwari Rice Building, Ward – 4(1)(3), Opp. Hi Look Bakery, Bengaluru. Kasavanahalli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru – 560 035. Pan : Ccwpr 8342 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Nischal, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024

section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules. 8. The learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in initiating the re- assessment proceeding u/s. 148 which is based on the incorrect assumption that the appellant had sold non-agriculture land. Addition of Rs. 52,99,000/- 9. The Learned

UDAYA SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

282. 9.4 Going through the above stated judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we note the assessee i.e. Totgars, Co-Operative Sales Society Ltd at the relevant time (A.Y. 1991-92 to 1999-2000) was engaged in two activities viz marketing of agricultural produce of its members and providing credit facilities to them. The assessment

THE SRI KANNIKAPARAMESHWARI CO-OP BANK LIMITED,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

section 143(1) without scrutiny and nothing more. Under these facts, it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that this is nothing but a review of the earlier proceedings and an abuse of power by the AO. But in the present case, sufficient reasons has been given by the AO and material has been indicated

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

282,818 ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 29 of 38 31.2 The definition of export turnover for the purpose of section 10A of the Act is given in explanation (2)(i)(b) to section 10A of the Act and the same reads as follows: “the consideration in respect of export

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

282,818 ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 29 of 38 31.2 The definition of export turnover for the purpose of section 10A of the Act is given in explanation (2)(i)(b) to section 10A of the Act and the same reads as follows: “the consideration in respect of export