DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains made by him for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets. We find therefore that on this ground also, the assessee is liable to 13 ITA No.293/Bang/2020. Dr.Sheela Puttabuddi. succeed. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside.” 14. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the assessee

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

366 has very thoroughly analyzed the provision of section 54 of the Act and held that utilization of capital gains

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

366 has very thoroughly analyzed the provision of section 54 of the Act and held that utilization of capital gains

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

366 ITR 356 (Kam.). Where the owner of the intangible asset like know-how sells in or grants an exclusive license to another which pro-tanto disentitles the owner from exercising its rights therein, the transaction amounts to an assignment of capital rights and the payment to be regarded as a capital receipt. Reliance is placed on the following decisions

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 consideration consideration acquisition offered to tax 352,599,441 3,084,915 2017-18 349,514,526 43,621,

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 consideration consideration acquisition offered to tax 352,599,441 3,084,915 2017-18 349,514,526 43,621,

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 consideration consideration acquisition offered to tax 352,599,441 3,084,915 2017-18 349,514,526 43,621,

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 145 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('ITA') it is the choice of the taxpayer to follow any of the two recognized method of accounting and once the choice is made by the taxpayer of a system that is recognized by ICAI or by taxpayer of same class, taxpayer cannot be taken away from that class just

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 145 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('ITA') it is the choice of the taxpayer to follow any of the two recognized method of accounting and once the choice is made by the taxpayer of a system that is recognized by ICAI or by taxpayer of same class, taxpayer cannot be taken away from that class just

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 145 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('ITA') it is the choice of the taxpayer to follow any of the two recognized method of accounting and once the choice is made by the taxpayer of a system that is recognized by ICAI or by taxpayer of same class, taxpayer cannot be taken away from that class just

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. B.M. JAYESHANKAR, BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

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

366/-). However, when the final deal was signed the loan amount has been camouflaged in the agreement and the aggregate ITA No.479/Bang/2020 & CO No.10/Bang/2020 Shri B.M. Jayashankar, Bangalore Page 6 of 25 purchase price is stated at only Rs.723 Crores (approx.) {Consideration after accounting the additional consideration is Rs.780 Crores (approx.). • However, as per the valuation of APPPL the same

M/S. GOKULDAS EXPORTS,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Gokaldas Exports Vs. Dcit, Circle - 11(2) (Presently Gokaldas Exports Ltd.) Bengaluru No. 25, 2Nd Cross, 3Rd Main Industrial Suburb, Yashwanthpur Bengaluru 560022 Pan – Aaacg8239J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bangalore Dated 31.03.2004 For Ay 1995-06. This Is The Third Round Of Proceedings Before The Tribunal In Pursuant Of The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In Ita No. 635 Of 2016 Order Dated 19.07.2022 Which Is Placed On Record On Pages 164 To 176 Of The Paper Book.

capital gain under Section 45(4) of the Act. The assessee filed reply and after considering the documents filed before the AO he passed the order. Since the matter before us is in third round, we think that there is no need to reproduce the in between events which are already decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54F of the Act provides for\nexemption of long term capital gains on transfer of any capital asset,\nif the net sale consideration is re-invested in acquisition of a\nresidential house. One of the conditions in order to claim the benefit\nu/s 54F of the Act is that on the date of transfer of asset, the tax\npayer

M/S.DEVON PLANTATIONS & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, is given below : AY 2007-08 AY 2008-09 AY 2009-10 AY 2010-11 Share capital 29,75,290 29,75,290 29,75,290 29,75,290 Reserve and 5,14,87,589 5,73,29,398 6,66,76,749 8,28,24,073 surplus Secured loans

TATA COFFEE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

366 15,76,08 3 Commission paid 1,23,36,810 4 recovery of Expenses 2,90,767 - 4. Since as per the provisions of section 92 of the Act, income arising from any transaction between the assessee and its AE has to be determined having regard to the arm’s length price (ALP), the assessee filed a TP analysis

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA COFFEE PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

366 15,76,08 3 Commission paid 1,23,36,810 4 recovery of Expenses 2,90,767 - 4. Since as per the provisions of section 92 of the Act, income arising from any transaction between the assessee and its AE has to be determined having regard to the arm’s length price (ALP), the assessee filed a TP analysis

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains derived from the manufacture of goods in a factory, there shall, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to thirty per cent. of additional wages paid to the new regular workmen employed by the assessee in such factory, in the previous year, for three assessment years including the assessment

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total 33,46,60,580/- 3. In these cases, assessment orders were framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] disallowing the interest on borrowed capital paid to the partners by these firms. While disallowing interest payment, the A.O. enquired with the assessees the necessity of paying such interest