DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain taxable at normal rate Rs. 58,95,682/- (Rs. 63,96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461) D. Interest Income Rs. 1,16,275/- Total (A+B+C+D) Rs. 68,81,000/- 4.2 Further, the assessee against the taxable income at normal slab rate of Rs. 68,81,000/- claimed deduction under section

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 80G of the Act for Rs. 16,28,978/- only.\n4. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual, during the\nyear under consideration derived income under the house property,\nbusiness income, capital gain and other sources. In the return of income,\nthe assessee declared Gross Total Income

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

capital gain. The learned D.R. failed to point out any change in the facts and circumstances even this impugned year. Therefore, applying the principle of consistency as formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992] 193 ITR 321 we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

Section 143(1) of the Act, adjusted the business loss against the capital gains. This adjustment reduced the carry-forward business loss to Rs. 28,82,236/- while the tax liability on capital gains remained unchanged at Rs. 3,58

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Gain to the\ntune of Rs.6,48,41,697/- after considering the Indexed Cost of Acquisition for\nRs.13,87,62,210/- and Indexed Cost of Improvement for Rs.2,58,85,277/- in\nFinancial Year 2011-12 and in Financial Year 2012-13 for Rs.10,31,416/-.\nAfter discussing the issue in detail, AO made addition to Long Term Capital\nGain

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

Section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, may please be pardoned and the Appellant be granted deduction of the whole of the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs 91,50,368/- U/s 54 of the Act. 3.3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in law and on facts in not considering

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

58 (Delhi) with ITA Nos 2558/2012 and 2044 and 2045/2014 dated 20.11.2018, the ITAT dismissed the appeals of Spaze Towers Pvt Ltd, thereby upholding the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non- disclosure of income. These penalties were based on the company's failure to declare certain income in its returns

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96,52,74,468/-. We shall adjudicate the above two issues as under: - Re-computation of arm's length price of shares sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- (Ground Nos. 1 to 14): 6. The brief facts in relation to the above issue are that

SHANKARE GOWDA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Shankare Gowda No.2314/A/1681/A, Behind Bescom Office Subhash Nagara Ito Nelamangala Vs. Ward 4(3)(3) Bengaluru Rural 562 123 Bengaluru Karnataka Pan No : Bozpg9856G Appellant Respondent

section 48(i) of the Act, expenses incurred wholly or exclusively in connection with the transfer of immovable property ShankareGowda, Bengaluru Rural Page 4 of 15 do not include compensation paid on account of cancellation of agreement and hence amount of Rs.3,68,21,168/- was added back to the returned income on account of disallowed cost of improvement

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. 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

58,304 4 Borewell paid in cash 6,00,000 6.12 The above-said expenditures were incurred through cheque and debited in the bank account for all such expenditures, the bank statement along with the list of the said expenditures for the above said expenditures with the nature of expenditure incurred was produced before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

58 ITR 313 / 154 DTR 241 / 188 TTJ 1 (SB) (Delhi) (Trib.)  Dy.CIT v. Diamond Co. Ltd. (2017) 162 ITD 131 (Kol.) (Trib.)  Yashoda Health Care Services P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 54 ITR 26 (Hyd.) (Trib.)  Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 53 ITR 5 (Kol.) (Trib.) 7. While calculating the disallowance under section 14A, only the investments that

CRYSTAL ICE AND COLD STOR AGE,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALURU

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Crystal Ice & Cold Storage, Plot No. 395-A1 Industrial Area, The Income Tax Officer, Baikampady New, Mangalore, Ward-1(1), Vs. Mangaluru, Karnataka – 575011. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaefc9692E Appellant Respondent

58,87,104/- and resultant capital gain was worked Page 3 of 6 out at Rs. 10,43,865/-. The property was sold to Mr. Harry Dsouza and Theresa Dsouza for Rs. 70,00,000/- on which the TDS of Rs. 70,000/- was made. The Assessee submitted the purchase deed of the property also. 5. The Ld. Assessing Officer

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

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

58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total 33,46,60,580/- 3. In these cases, assessment orders were framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] disallowing the interest on borrowed capital paid to the partners by these firms. While disallowing interest payment, the A.O. enquired with the assessees the necessity of paying

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

58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total 33,46,60,580/- 3. In these cases, assessment orders were framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] disallowing the interest on borrowed capital paid to the partners by these firms. While disallowing interest payment, the A.O. enquired with the assessees the necessity of paying

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

58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total 33,46,60,580/- 3. In these cases, assessment orders were framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] disallowing the interest on borrowed capital paid to the partners by these firms. While disallowing interest payment, the A.O. enquired with the assessees the necessity of paying

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

58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total 33,46,60,580/- 3. In these cases, assessment orders were framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] disallowing the interest on borrowed capital paid to the partners by these firms. While disallowing interest payment, the A.O. enquired with the assessees the necessity of paying