DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

section was quoted correctly by the deductor.” 3 Ramesh Narayana Reddy (HUF) 3. At the outset the revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) on three counts. a. NAFC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 1,81,01,752/- on account of deemed rental income from the flats owned by assessee, these flats were allotted

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains 12,000 10,000 d) Why the Safe Harbour Limit of 10% Should be Retrospective? Legal maxim 'Law Prospicit Non Respicit' presumes law to be prospective & not retrospective. However, where the legislation is enacted with a purpose of mitigating undue hardship the provision in such a case has to be given a reasonable & equitable construction

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

51, held as under : "13 Before analyzing Section 80-/B, as a prefatory note, it needs to be mentioned that the 1961 Act broadly provides for two types of tax incentives, namely, investment linked incentives and profit linked incentives. Chapter VI-A which provides for incentives in the form of tax deductions essentially belong to the category of "profit linked

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

51, held as under : "13 Before analyzing Section 80-/B, as a prefatory note, it needs to be mentioned that the 1961 Act broadly provides for two types of tax incentives, namely, Page 10 of 39 ITA Nos.927, 974 & 975/Bang/2023 Tata Elxsi Ltd., Bangalore investment linked incentives and profit linked incentives. Chapter VI-A which provides for incentives

M/S. S I MEDIA LLP, ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

51,20,901 representing the indexed cost of interest. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 121 and contended that the interest cost was incurred on the money borrowed which was utilized

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

51, held as under :-\n\"13. Before analyzing Section 80-B, as a prefatory note, it needs to be mentioned\nthat the 1961 Act broadly provides for two types of tax incentives, namely,\ninvestment linked incentives and profit linked incentives. Chapter VI-A which\nprovides for incentives in the form of tax deductions essentially belong to the\ncategory of \"profit

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

capital gain of Rs. 1,51,74,000/-. The assessee reinvested this amount in a new residential unit and claimed exemption under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. BAGALUR KRISHNAIAH SETTY VIJAY SHANKER, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

51,057/- and offered\nthe long term capital gain of Rs. 74,60,742/- to tax. The AO also noticed that\nthe assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 54 of the Act towards investment in\nhouse property which was under construction and not completed. The assessee\nfurnished before the AO a valuation report certifying the total amount spent on\nconstruction

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

51,444 of other discount for this year also and thus allow ground nos. 2 to 10 of the appeal. 16. Ground No.11 of the appeal is with respect to addition of Rs.49,00,12,501 under the provisions of section 45(4) of the Act. Ground Nos. 12 to 16 are supporting the above ground. 17. The brief facts

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

51,444 of other discount for this year also and thus allow ground nos. 2 to 10 of the appeal. 16. Ground No.11 of the appeal is with respect to addition of Rs.49,00,12,501 under the provisions of section 45(4) of the Act. Ground Nos. 12 to 16 are supporting the above ground. 17. The brief facts

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

Section 68 of the Act ought to be sustained. 11 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that on identical facts with regard to claim of LTCG on sale of shares of NCL Research Financial Ltd., the following orders of the coordinate bench of the Bangalore Tribunal

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

51,34,75,210/- after claiming deduction under section 80G of Rs. 4,05,98,408/- and 80IAB of Rs. 585,09,09,819/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee also responded to the notices. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10AA being

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

capital gain tax can be levied.\" Concluded at page 12\npara no. 31 as under:-\n\"53. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as stood prior to its\namendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a\nbanking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the\nassessee and against

MALLIKARJUNAIAH ADVEESHAIAH HULLUKUNTE,BENGALURU vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain of ₹1,65,51,367.00 only. He also claimed deduction under section 54D of ₹3,18,28,120 and construction

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

51 of 55 salary account but sustained the addition only on the reason that PAN details of the employees have not been submitted. Such action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the fact and against the judicial precedence, even though the ad-hoc addition is not permissible in framing the assessment. 6.16 The Assessee firm has debited

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

51 of the Hon. ITATs order\ndated 27.05.2022.\nWithout prejudice to the preceding grounds,\n7. The Hon. CIT(A)and the LAO erred in upholding the addition in a sum\nof Rs.7,30,77,776 under the head business income without considering that\nthe Appellant is not engaged in any trade, commerce, manufacture or\nadventure in the nature of trade

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE vs. NADAKRISHNA THIMMAIAH, BANGALORE

51 of the Hon. ITATs order\ndated 27.05.2022.\nWithout prejudice to the preceding grounds,\n7. The Hon. CIT(A)and the LAO erred in upholding the addition in a sum\nof Rs.7,30,77,776 under the head business income without considering that\nthe Appellant is not engaged in any trade, commerce, manufacture or\nadventure in the nature of trade

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against