PADMAVATHI DHAREPPA UPPAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismisses

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

section 143 (2) and 142 (1) were served on assessee. In response to statutory notices, representative of assessee filed requisite details as called for. 2.1Ld. AO on perusal of details filed, was of the opinion that assessee was trading in shares. Ld. AO noted that there were intraday transactions, taking into account frequency of transaction and duration of holding

MR.SANTHOSH GOKUL REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

capital gains. The Income Tax Simplification Committee (Easwar Committee) has I.T.A. No.1237/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 in its first report, pointed out that this provision does not provide any relief where the seller has entered into an agreement to sell the property much before the actual date of transfer of the immovable property and the sale consideration is fixed

MR. M J ARAVIN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

gains in the event of sale or as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of securities during the year thereby entitling the assessee relief under section 48 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. The assessee also wishes to state that the expenses claimed are clearly outgoings and in the most unlikely event of your honor

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN, WARD-1(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI HOSAGRAHAR VISVESVARAYA JAGADISH,, USA

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

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14

capital gains of Rs.6,76,02,248/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24/3/2016. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the ld AR of the assessee argued the grounds and reiterated the submission made before the lower authorities. The Sole dispute is with

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" has to be computed and it lays down that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides that the Central Government may notify

SRI SIMHADRI KRISHNAMURTHY,SINDHANOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , RAICHUR

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

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

364/- 2.1 Aggrieved by additions made by Ld.AO assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT (A), upheld addition under the head unsecured loans and addition made under section 50C. 2.2 Aggrieved by order of Ld.CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us now. 3. Ground No. 1-2, 12-13 are general in nature and Ground No. 11 is consequential therefore

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

gains of business or\nprofession\" or \"Income from other sources\" has to be computed and it lays\ndown that such income shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be\ncomputed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting\nregularly employed by the assessee. Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides\nthat the Central Government may notify

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

364 ITR 88 (Bombay)has settled that when subsidy is received by the assessee for setting up a new unit, then receipt of subsidy is on capital account. In another path breaking judgement, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 351 ITR. 309 (Bombay) Where object

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

364 ITR 88 (Bombay)has settled that when subsidy is received by the assessee for setting up a new unit, then receipt of subsidy is on capital account. In another path breaking judgement, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 351 ITR. 309 (Bombay) Where object

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

364 ITR 88 (Bombay)has settled that when subsidy is received by the assessee for setting up a new unit, then receipt of subsidy is on capital account. In another path breaking judgement, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 351 ITR. 309 (Bombay) Where object

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

364 ITR 88 (Bombay)has settled that when subsidy is received by the assessee for setting up a new unit, then receipt of subsidy is on capital account. In another path breaking judgement, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 351 ITR. 309 (Bombay) Where object

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

364,205,123.16 3 Atos IT Outsourcing Services, LLC 34 USD 30/09/2015 30/10/2015 28/10/2015 206,004,443 28 5,768,124,409.32 4 Atos IT Outsourcing Services, LLC 50 USD 31/10/2015 30/11/2015 23/11/2015 197,147,060 23 4,534,382,377.47 5 Atos IT Outsourcing Services, LLC 66 USD 30/11/2015 30/12/2015 22/12/2015

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub- section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub- section (1) [***], a return

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

gains, confirmations, bank statements etc. B.16 In view of the above, the ld. A.R. submitted that that there are no reasons to believe that the above said income for AY 2012-13 has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 and the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act are unsustainable in the law. Therefore, he requested drop

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section