M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains by understatement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must, therefore, accept as the underlying assumption of sub-section (2) that there is understatement of consideration in respect

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains by understatement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must, therefore, accept as the underlying assumption of sub-section (2) that there is understatement of consideration in respect

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains by understatement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must, therefore, accept as the underlying assumption of sub-section (2) that there is understatement of consideration in respect

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains by understatement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must, therefore, accept as the underlying assumption of sub-section (2) that there is understatement of consideration in respect

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains by understatement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must, therefore, accept as the underlying assumption of sub-section (2) that there is understatement of consideration in respect

M/S. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

40A(2)(b) reported in audit report and ITR. From a reading of these reasons, we are of the view that no prudent business person properly instructed in law would have inferred the TP risk parameter as a reason for scrutiny so as to mandatorily make reference u/s. 92C of the Act in terms of CBDT Instruction No.3/16 and failure

M/S STERLING URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal are decided as follows: Ground

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3282/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sterling Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.8, Level-5, Prestige Nebula, Circle -6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp. To Income Tax Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 12.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed U/S. 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 On 12Th June 2002 Under The Name & Style “Foundation Habitats (India) Private Limited”. The Company Has Been Converted As A Spv In The Year 2006. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Activities Relating To Real Estate

40A(2)(b) will not apply. Therefore to attract the provisions of Sec.40A(2)(b) of the Act, the SDT should have been with the beneficial shareholder and not with a registered shareholder then also the first limb of provisions of section 2(22)(e) will not apply. Therefore the transaction of redemption of debentures held by HDFC Property Fund

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Capital Gain’ (LTCG). However if any gain is earned on the construction part of the property, the same will be assessed as STCG. Accordingly, principally we allow the claim of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to accept the claim of LTCG to the extent of the land and if any gain is earned by the assessee on account

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(2) of the Act:  Kirloskar Oil Engines Vs JCIT, ITA Nos. 61 & 406/PUN/2015 (Pune ITAT)  The Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd., ITA no. 7171/Mum./2010 and others (Bombay ITAT) 28.1 The ld. D.R. submitted that there was no evidence to show that the Executive Chairman Mr. Vijay Mallya rendered any services to the assessee so as to give commission

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 143(3) of the Act, in the Assessment Year 2003-2004. 8. The CIT has allowed the average cost worked out by the assessing officer for the assessment year 2003 - 04 in the case of M/s Vectra Holdings P Limited, an associate company fo the appellant. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 143(3) of the Act, in the Assessment Year 2003-2004. 8. The CIT has allowed the average cost worked out by the assessing officer for the assessment year 2003 - 04 in the case of M/s Vectra Holdings P Limited, an associate company fo the appellant. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 143(3) of the Act, in the Assessment Year 2003-2004. 8. The CIT has allowed the average cost worked out by the assessing officer for the assessment year 2003 - 04 in the case of M/s Vectra Holdings P Limited, an associate company fo the appellant. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

section 143(3) of the Act, in the Assessment Year 2003-2004. 8. The CIT has allowed the average cost worked out by the assessing officer for the assessment year 2003 - 04 in the case of M/s Vectra Holdings P Limited, an associate company fo the appellant. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page

SRI. KRISHNA DIAMONDS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under Chapter X and therefore addition made under Chapter X is bad in law. GROUNDS RELATED TP ADJUSTMENT 4. The lower income tax authorities have erred in: i. Not appreciating that the CUP Method is the most appropriate method in the facts and circumstances

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

Gain". The assessee did not receive the sum in question for giving up any source of income as the assessee was free to exploit independently owned IPR as well as Foreground information and therefore the argument that the sum received is capital receipt for losing a source of income and therefore not chargeable to tax, is devoid of any merits

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

capital at risk (or) take any other strategic decisions. Accordingly, no single promoter group has "control/influence" over decisions of the board. Based on the above facts, our tax auditors have also not considered Force India as an associated enterprise of UBL. Consequently, we request your good self not to consider Force India as an Associated Enterprise of United breweries Limited

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 (15) of the Act. 33. In the present facts of the case, applicability of principle of merger do not arise since Ld.AO had not considered the issue of expenditure made in cash by assessee and applicability of section 40A (3) of the Act u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A. On an appeal by assessee before Ld.CIT (A), we note that

R. SRINIVAS RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

2 is regarding disallowance made under section 40A(3) of the act. The brief facts leading to the controversy, are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s Adarsh Developers on 13/12/2006. During the course of search certain documents pertaining to Sri S. L. Natraj, one of the associate of Sri Jayaram