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

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

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

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

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

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

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

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

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

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

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

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 48, the language employed is unambiguous. The intention is very clear. When a capital asset is transferred, in order to determine the capital gain from such transfer, what is to be seen is, out of full value of the consideration received or accruing, the cost of acquisition of the asset, the cost of improvement and any expenditure wholly

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

40,12,594/- whereas the stamp duty value was only Rs.2,32,54,118/-and therefore we of theconsidered opinion that the actual sale consideration so received amounting to Rs.2,18,29,631/- shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. Accordingly we direct the AO to consider

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

40,12,594/- whereas the stamp duty value was only Rs.2,32,54,118/-and therefore we of theconsidered opinion that the actual sale consideration so received amounting to Rs.2,18,29,631/- shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. Accordingly we direct the AO to consider

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

section 55." 31. Thus the only way to bring to tax sale consideration received on transfer of “Technical know-how” is to call it “goodwill” and that is probably Page 27 of 45 the reason why the AO preferred to call transfer of Technical know-how as transfer of goodwill. We are of the view that “Technical know

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax arising out of such sales within the meaning of the definition of the term “capital asset”. Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain and claimed that it was agricultural land though it was converted into non-agricultural residential purpose, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU vs. M/S. BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

Section 50B(1) of the Income-tax Act also clearly states that any profits or gains arising from the slump sale effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income-tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital adjustment shall be carried out in the light of above order of the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. IT(TP)A No.2846/Bang/2017 M/s. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 47 16. With regard to Ground Nos.5 & 6, no argument has been put before us by the ld. A.R., hence not considered for adjudication. 17. Ground No.7

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax arising out of such sales within the meaning of the definition of the term “capital asset”. Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain and claimed that it was agricultural land though it was converted into non-agricultural residential purpose, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

40,000/-. Ld.AO noted that possession of the property was not taken by assessee and registered sale deed was not executed in favour of assessee. Ld.AO thus came to the conclusion that, conditions for claiming exemption under section 54F did not stand satisfied. 5. He accordingly, disallowed claim of assessee and made additions amounting to Rs.87,92,748/-, that

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

capital loss on sale of shares as claimed by the Assessee and hold that the transaction of sale of shares deserves to be ignored and no loss can be determined nor can any short term gain be taxed. Thus the grounds relating to short term loss/gain on sale of shares are treated as partly allowed. 54. Ground No.23

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof. (emphasis supplied) 24. The issue for our consideration is the year of assessability of capital gains arising on the property, which was the subject matter of development agreement, i.e., whether it is assessable in the year

DR. DEVIKA GUNASHEELA,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year: 2012-13

40,000/-. The assessee received a sum of Rs.1,51,20,000/- as her share in the sale consideration for sale of ½ share of right title and interest over the property. 3. For assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed a Return of income, declaring Long term Capital Gain on Dr. Devika Gunasheela, Bengaluru Page 3 of 19 sale