DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

55-A of the Act as a matter of course, without\nconsidering the report of approved valuer submitted by the assessee.\"\n5.8 The Hon'ble High Court further held that Section 50-C of the\nAct is a rule of evidence in assessing the valuation of property for\ncalculating the capital gain. The deeming provision under Section

MR. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

gains of Rs. 8,18,960/- with short term capital loss of Rs. 1,61,821/-. However, the taxable long term capital loss is Rs. 1,10,646/- which is computed as per the provisions of Section 112A r.w.s. 55(2)(ac

MRS. JEANETTE DSOUZA LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI. VINOD DSOUZA),MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, with above direction to the learned assessing officer, the ground No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Mrs. Jeanette Dsouza, Lr Of Late Shri Vinod Dsouza, Flat No. San F 10, The Income Tax Officer, Holy Family Apartments, Ward – 1(1), Vs. Lalbagh, Mangalore, Mangalore. Karnataka – 575 003. Pan: Adhpd4076H Appellant Respondent

capital gain and further denied the indexation benefit under section 55 (2) (ac) though the property was acquired in 1994 and held

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

Section 37 of the Income-tax Act would be relevant. The said provision reads as follows: "SECTION 37 GENERAL: (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

55,388/- (6%\nof gross maintenance charges of Rs.59,23,126/-) as per the\nprovisions of section 44AD of the Act. However, the AO observed\nthat the agreement with the SBI is a composite agreement. The\nassessee is not into the business of renting out properties and as\nsuch, the income from maintenance charges received has direct\nnexus with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

capital gains / income from other sources from the said sale has not been offered to tax.\nOn the basis of the above information received from the Investigation Wing and perusal of the\nseized documents, the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for the assessment year 2006-07 and hence the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

AC in the return of income filed\nwithout any reasoning?\n(ii)\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nLaw, the CIT(A) was correct in accepting the contention of assessee\nthat he had declared income @6.05% of the receipts in Form 26AS and\nthe same was in addition to income of Rs. 1 crore declared

M/S. CORPORATE LEISURE & PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

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

55,530/-before set off of brought forward losses under the facts and circumstances of the case. M/s. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 32 2. a. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.3,82,49,464/- by changing the accounting policy regularly followed by the appellant

M/S. TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Acit, No.78, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Electronic City, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaact 4660 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vikram Udupa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023

AC (2023) 147 taxmann.com 558. Alternatively, it was contended that since the payment towards technical know-how is capitalized in its books, the difference between transacted value and ALP cannot be added since there is no effect to the total income. To support this contention, reliance was placed on the decision in Ciena India