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. 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

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

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

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, 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

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, 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

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, 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

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

KANIGERE RAMEGOWDA NINGARAJU,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, HASSAN

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2015-16

capital gains under section 45 of the Act. Holding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, the PCIT relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 95 taxmann.com 366

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

366/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny assessment and reference was made to the TPO. Thereafter, a draft assessment order was passed on 11.03.2013 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 3. The Appellant filed its objections before the DRP which issued its directions on 30.12.2013. In line with the DRP directions

GLOBE TELESERVICES LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for both\nthe years under consideration stands partly allowed

Capital gains\") for—\n(i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a\nlicence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design,\nsecret formula or process or trade mark or similar property;\n(ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working\nof, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret\nformula or process

GLOBE TELESERVICES LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for both\nthe years under consideration stands partly allowed

Capital gains\") for—\n(i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a\nlicence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design,\nsecret formula or process or trade mark or similar property;\n(ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working\nof, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret\nformula or process

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ORANGE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FRANCE TELECOM)), FRANCE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 711/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Orange The Deputy (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of France Telecom), Income Tax, 78, Rue Olivaier De Circle – 2(2), Serres, International Paris, Taxation, Vs. France. Bengaluru. Pan: Aacco8859J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri D.S. Karthik, Jcit (Dr)

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

M/S. TELECOM ITALIA SPARKLE SINGAPORE PTE. LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2010-11 M/S. Telecom Italia The Deputy Sparkle Singapore Pte. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 23-01, Suntec Tower (International Four, Taxation), 6 Temasek Boulevard, Vs. Circle – 2(1), Singapore – 038986 Bangalore. Pan: Aagct6780P Appellant Respondent & It(It)A No. 1138/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ti Sparkle The Deputy Singapore Pte. Ltd., Commissioner Of 23-01, Suntec Tower Income Tax, Four, (International 6 Temasek Boulevard, Taxation), Singapore – 038986 Circle – 2(2), Vs. Pan: Aagct6780P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

Capital gains") for— Page 11 IT(IT)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 & 1138/Bang/2022 (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent

M/S. TELECOM ITALIA SPARKLE SINGAPORE PTE. LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2010-11 M/S. Telecom Italia The Deputy Sparkle Singapore Pte. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 23-01, Suntec Tower (International Four, Taxation), 6 Temasek Boulevard, Vs. Circle – 2(1), Singapore – 038986 Bangalore. Pan: Aagct6780P Appellant Respondent & It(It)A No. 1138/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ti Sparkle The Deputy Singapore Pte. Ltd., Commissioner Of 23-01, Suntec Tower Income Tax, Four, (International 6 Temasek Boulevard, Taxation), Singapore – 038986 Circle – 2(2), Vs. Pan: Aagct6780P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

Capital gains") for— Page 11 IT(IT)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 & 1138/Bang/2022 (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent

M/S. TELEFONICA DE ESPANA SA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa, C/O. Bsr & Co.Llp, 3Rd Floor, Pebble The Acit(It)/Dcit(It), Beach, Circle – 2(2), Embassy Golf Links Bangalore. Business Park, Vs. Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aahct0411G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade