K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

96,22,061/- and declared capital gain on the same. On examination of the calculation of cost of acquisition ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 7 of 33 claimed by the assessee, the AO noticed that the assessee had taken different rates ranging from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

96,95,044.50 and Rs.14,60,95,303 in the AY 2017-18\nand permit me to pay the balance tax in instalment. I hereby submit\nthat the omission to offer the capital gains in the AY 17-18 was not\nwilful but due to lack of details from Millenia Realtors Pvt. Ltd., and\nthe same may be considered leniently

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

96,95,044.50 and Rs.14,60,95,303 in the AY 2017-18\nand permit me to pay the balance tax in instalment. I hereby submit\nthat the omission to offer the capital gains in the AY 17-18 was not\nwilful but due to lack of details from Millenia Realtors Pvt. Ltd., and\nthe same may be considered leniently

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

96,95,044.50 and Rs.14,60,95,303 in the AY 2017-18\nand permit me to pay the balance tax in instalment. I hereby submit\nthat the omission to offer the capital gains in the AY 17-18 was not\nwilful but due to lack of details from Millenia Realtors Pvt. Ltd., and\nthe same may be considered leniently

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

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

section 148 of the\nAct to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for\nthat Assessment Year. Therefore the case was rightly reopened by the AO.\nThe learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed appeal of the assessee.\n6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the Order\nof learned

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

96 ITR 463 12. Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216 14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26 15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14, 727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15 Page 20 of 39 16. P.K. Badianiv

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

96 ITR 463 12. Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373 13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216 14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26 15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14, 727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15 16. P.K. Badianiv. CIT(SC) 105 ITR 642 Page

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

96 ITR 463\n12. Brooke Bond and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 162 ITR 373\n13. Addl.CIT v. Solar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad HC) 190 ITR 216\n14. CIT v. Ramnath Goenka (Madras HC) 259 ITR 26\n15. K. Raheja IT Park v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITANo. 1774/Hyd/14,\n727/Hyd/15 & 728/Hyd/15\n16. P.K. Badianiv. CIT(SC) 105 ITR 642\n115

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.

section 234B of the Act.” 5. The above grounds relate to two issues, namely re-computation of arm's length price of share sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- and differential tax on account of difference in rate of tax on capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96

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.

section 234B of the Act.” 5. The above grounds relate to two issues, namely re-computation of arm's length price of share sold by the assessee amounting to Rs. 262,27,80,021/- and differential tax on account of difference in rate of tax on capital gains (based on the assessed income) of Rs. 96

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

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

capital creditors cannot be taxed as business income but must be adjusted against the block of assets. 9.13 It was further submitted that the foreign exchange gain was already considered in the profit before tax as per the audited financial statements. However, while computing taxable income, the assessee has reduced this gain to correctly align with the provisions of Section

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

96,239 23,94,26,383 28,94,66,747 Assessed income Note-1: ITA No.531 & 532/Bang/2024 M/s. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore Page 10 of 36 Profit after tax @10% of the turnover 18,05,06,835 10.00% should have been Less: Double counting of cash 2,19,16,087 receipts as the same is recorded

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

Gains.\n3. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law to appreciate that the fact the shares held by the\nbank in CanFin Homes Ltd. are to be treated as capital asset.\n3. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that it was strategic investment by the bank.\n3. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following

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

96,80,000 2,49,91,058 2011-12 35,00,000 2,52,05,684 2010-11 - 2,52,16,619 2009-10 - 2,56,73,441 2008-09 4,33,104 2,58,77,140 2007-08 19,60,000 2,40,92,684 8.2 Assessee has explained the above discrepancy as under: The above expenditures might have

M/S. ZASH TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

gains on such transfer of Wipro shares is\nsummarized hereunder:\n\nParticulars\nSection\nReference\nTotal Sale\nTotal Cost of\nacquisition\nLong term capital\ngain/(loss)\n\n180,13,600 55(2)(b)(i)\n5,85,30,33,205 24,10,94,02,240 (18,25,63,69,035)\nWipro shares\nFMV as at\n01.04.2001 is\napplied for\n\"cost

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

capital gain arised out of this\ntransaction. Accordingly, he gave direction to the ld. AO to examine\nthe claim made by the assessee as compulsory acquisition under\nRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land\nAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In our\nopinion, the property has been acquired under KIADB Act, 1966 for\nMetro\nvide its notification\nwork