LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax arising out of such sales within the meaning of the definition of the term “capital asset”. Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain and claimed that it was agricultural land though it was converted into non-agricultural residential purpose, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax arising out of such sales within the meaning of the definition of the term “capital asset”. Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain and claimed that it was agricultural land though it was converted into non-agricultural residential purpose, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) and there was no capital gains tax arising out of such sales within the meaning of the definition of the term “capital asset”. Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain and claimed that it was agricultural land though it was converted into non-agricultural residential purpose, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143

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

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

79,503 10,94,09,164 5,96,29,446 Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Land 6,48,41,697 12,11,12,036 17,08,91,754 Less : Long Term Capital loss on Sale Shares 1,52,25,759 45,05,000 1,52,25,759 Net Long Term Capital Gain

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the asessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the IT Act. The simple reply of the assessee’s representative was that though the lands were converted, agricultural activities were going on. 7. The Assessing Officer held though the asessee’s representative was harping that the agricultural activities were carried on till the date of the sale, even after

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

capital gains taxation, it is exempt under sec.47(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. The case of the Revenue is that a company cannot make a gift and also seen if it is treated as a gift, it is not eligible for exemption provided under sec.47(iii), as correct provision of law applies to the case of the assessee

TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

section 45 of the Act. 10. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that Sobha City held a piece of land and that the assessee had a share of 30% of such land. It was concluded that the assessee relinquished its share in such land in favour of other partners of the firm. Therefore, it was a case

ITO vs. R. SRINIVAS,

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

79,000 c) Second Floor Rs.25,87,500 Total Investment Upto 31.3.2010 : Rs.1,28,62,774. 6.5.2 The assessee's contention is that since the concerned assessment year was 2008-09, the time limit to utilize the capital gains for making the deposit or to invest the capital gains in the construction of the new residential building

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

capital gain under section 55(2)(a) and its cost has to be taken at Rs. Nil. Reference was made to a decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in Jayaprakash Mady v. ITO [2001] 79

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 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

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 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

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 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

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 147 is not applicable and since no opinion was formed by the AO, there is no question of any change of opinion. ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 11 of 26 Therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment also is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that none

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GENEVA FINE PUNCH ENCLOSURES LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumardeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Geneva Industries Ltd., (Formerly Geneva Fine Punch Enclosures Ltd.),No.140/1, Pattandur Agrahara Village, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 066. … Respondent Pan: Aaacg7208F & (By The Assessee) Assessee By : Shri B.Balachandran, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals)-I, Bengaluru, Dated 30/08/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly, Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Making Of Sheet Metal, Medical Equipments & Accessories. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-

capital gains are utilised in acquiring new plant and machinery and building for the purpose of business of undertaking in the area to which it is shifted plus incurring expenses in the purchase of the new plant and machinery etc. Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 54G authorizes the Central Government to declare the areas to be urban area

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRUE NORTH FUND IIIA , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

section 10(38) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have ITA No.486 /Bang/2019 CO No.50/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 46 adjudicated, on merits, that no interest has accrued, or arisen to or has been received by the Respondent on loans given to Innovative B2B Logistics Solutions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain or as business income, ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 49 of 96 which issue not required to be answered at this stage as the income is not accrued in these assessment years. The quantum of applicability of Accounting Standard-9 with regard to revenue recognition is not required