LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 153C are bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- a. CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (84 taxmann.com 290); b. CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (62 taxmann.com 391) (Del); c. CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108) (Kar); d. CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (73 taxmann.com 149)(Kar); e. Pr. CIT v. Allied Perfumers

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 153C are bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- a. CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (84 taxmann.com 290); b. CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (62 taxmann.com 391) (Del); c. CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108) (Kar); d. CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (73 taxmann.com 149)(Kar); e. Pr. CIT v. Allied Perfumers

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 153C are bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following rulings:- a. CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (84 taxmann.com 290); b. CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (62 taxmann.com 391) (Del); c. CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (69 taxmann.com 108) (Kar); d. CIT v. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (73 taxmann.com 149)(Kar); e. Pr. CIT v. Allied Perfumers

TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

391 9. The Assessing Officer [AO] however considered such amount as consideration for transfer of capital asset resulting in income chargeable to tax under the head 'Capital Gains'. The AO held that, there is a transfer by the assessee by way of relinquishment of rights in the assets of the firm. He also held that there is a transfer

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

391 ITR 274 4. Kilburn Properties Limited v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 17 ITR 134 5. Ezra Propritary Estate Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 18 ITR 762 6. Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. v. CIT (Kolkata HC) 33 ITR 341 7. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (SC) 57 ITR 306 8. CIT vs. Bhavnagar Trust Corporation (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section 29 provides that income referred to in Section

SRI DINESH DEVRAJ RANKA,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-8,, BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

391. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. Page 2 of 21 3. The AO completed the assessment by making the following additions:- (i) Bad debts - Rs.24,20,000 (ii) Professional charges – Rs.2 crores (iii) Capital gain – Rs.5,65,24,370 (iv) Disallowance u/s. 14A – Rs.4,97,089 4. Aggrieved

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital account transactions. We also notice that the AO has allowed the loss arising on restatement of trade debtors, trade creditors and other monetary assets. The AO has, however, disallowed the loss arising on restatement of forward contracts. 27.6 The decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Quality Engineering and software technologies P Ltd (supra) states

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from

M/S. SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

391. 2 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in hotel business. The assessee filed Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 declaring loss of Rs.53,38,264 and the return was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice Under Section

M/S FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

391. Thus, the assessee-company sustained a loss of Rs. 27,02,398 but it did not claim that loss in the return on the ground that the transfer in question was made to its own subsidiary. The ITO valued the shares transferred by the assessee-company to its subsidiary at the market rate and on that basis came

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

391 ITR 274, inter alia, considered the followed question of law for adjudication. (IV) Whether losses of other 10A Units or non 10A Units can be set off against the profits of 10A Units before deductions under Section 10A are effected? The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision held as under - “15. Sub-section 4 of Section

ARADHYA STEEL WIRES PVT LTD.,,DAVANGERE vs. DCIT, DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

391/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 19/2/2015 for asst. year 2012-13, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) - 1, Bangalore. The ld CIT(A) disposed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 28/1/2016 allowing partial relief. In this ITA No.858/B/16 & CO 28/B/17 3 order, inter alia, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition made

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. DILIP RANJREKAR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

391/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 19/2/2015 for asst. year 2012-13, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) - 1, Bangalore. The ld CIT(A) disposed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 28/1/2016 allowing partial relief. In this ITA No.858/B/16 & CO 28/B/17 3 order, inter alia, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition made

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain arised out of this transaction. Accordingly, he gave direction to the ld. AO to examine the claim made by the assessee as compulsory acquisition under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In our opinion, the property has been acquired under KIADB Act, 1966 for Metro vide its notification work