DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. B.M. JAYESHANKAR, BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

583 -------------------- 2.3 From the above, it could be seen that the Assessing Officer, while computing capital gains, increased the total sale consideration and also reduced the indexed cost claimed. 2.4 Against such re-computation of capital gains, the Respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in the appellate order sustained

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

583 104. PAN: ACWPT0308C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi {in brevity

SMT. BHOOTE MEENAKSHI vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

583/- 3,72,43,612/- - - Total Disallowance - 3,56,58,029/- 5. It can be seen from the above table that there was a dispute between the Assessee and the AO with regard to allowing certain deduction while computing capital gain of expenses incurred in relation to transfer. The Assessee had claimed brokerage fees and legal fees paid

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SMT. MEENAKSHI BHOOTE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

583/- 3,72,43,612/- - - Total Disallowance - 3,56,58,029/- 5. It can be seen from the above table that there was a dispute between the Assessee and the AO with regard to allowing certain deduction while computing capital gain of expenses incurred in relation to transfer. The Assessee had claimed brokerage fees and legal fees paid

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

capital asset and the gains arising there from can be treated as LTCG. If these shares are found to be held as stock-in-trade Business Income. These facts require examination and verification by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, remand this issue / matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, verification and adjudication in the light

SHRI. UTTAMCHAND KHATRI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15

capital gain is not allowable. f. Ignorance of the assesee about shares and penny stock companies: Assessee has failed to show of having any knowledge about the shares traded and having any knowledge about the fundamentals of the penny stock companies. Page 4 of 8 g. Financial analysis of the penny stock companies: The networth of the penny stock company

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

583 201. PAN: AFAPC 4016 M APPELLANT Vs. DCIT, Central Circle – 1(1), Bangalore. RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. T. Srinivasa, CA Revenue by : Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the learned

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HOSAPETE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALABURGI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

583 201. PAN : AAAJP0326N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP Respondent by : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 Date of Hearing : 17.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT’s order dated 13.03.2019 passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

583/- • SEZ-Mumbai - Rs. 4,08,00,128/- 6.6. After entering into APA, income of assessee from export of IT services increased by sum of Rs.7,74,21,28,914/-, thereby, increasing income in the hands of assessee by Rs.23,73,23,41,974/-(being sum of net profit before taxes as per profit and loss account, Rs.15

ASIAN EARTH MOVERS,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

583 102. PAN : AAOFA 7327A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 12.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.11.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless

M/S STAR METALLICS & POWER PVT LTD ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariandshri George George Kassessment Year : 2013-14

capital gains chargeable under section 45; (vii) the profits and gains of any business of insurance carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative society, computed in accordance with section 44 or any surplus taken to be such profits and gains by virtue of provisions contained in the First Schedule; [(viia) the profits and gains

SMT.CHALSASNI BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD ,KOPPAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KOPPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

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

583 234. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Srinivasa, CA Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member These appeals are directed against the separate orders of the CIT(Appeals), Gulbarga, both dated 28.1.2019 for the assessment year 2012-13. They

SMT C RATHNABHAI ,KOPPAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KOPPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

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

583 234. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Srinivasa, CA Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member These appeals are directed against the separate orders of the CIT(Appeals), Gulbarga, both dated 28.1.2019 for the assessment year 2012-13. They

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

capital gain income of Rs. 37,28,537/- on sale of sale of equity share / unit of equity oriented Mutual Fund under section 111A. 3.2 Subsequent to a survey conducted under section 133A, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated accordingly notice under section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued, requiring the Assessee to file

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

583 201 PAN NO: AAAAG2993B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sri Balram R Rao, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17.07.2025 ORDER PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 05.04.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1063945858

SRI. ABDUL AZEEZ,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

583 103 PAN : ABKPA2333D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Hemanth N.P., Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 Date of Hearing : 20.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 11.07.2022. The relevant assessment year

YOUSUFF HAMEEDA BANU,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09

583 103 Bellary PAN NO : AEWPB8400R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Hemath N.P., A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 06.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 06.02.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) dated 11.7.2022 for the assessment year

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of Rules – only for Assessment Year 2008-09 and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) for all three Assessment Years 4.1 In respect of the disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules amounting to Rs.63,60,000/- for Assessment Year

M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

4. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of Rules – only for Assessment Year 2008-09 and under Rule 8D(2)(iii) for all three Assessment Years 4.1 In respect of the disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules amounting to Rs.63,60,000/- for Assessment Year