M/S. SSJV PROJECTS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 50C of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Without Prejudice, the valuation made by the valuation officer is erroneous in law and on facts for the following grounds: “[i] The valuation is highly excessive and is liable to be modified on the facts of the case. [ii] The valuation officer erred in not adopting

MR. IBRAHIM SHARIFF,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Ibrahim Shariff, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.102, Royal Mantor, Ward – 4(3)(1), 14Th B Cross, Sarakki Signal, Bengaluru. J. P. Nagar 1St Phase, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Cmtps 2195 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. Kiran Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.10.2023

50C of the I.T. Act. The AO failed to refer the matter to DVO u/s 500(2)(a) of the I.T. Act, even after the vociferous protect of the appellant in this regard during assessment proceedings. It has been held by the Hyderabad Bench of Page 3 of 6 ITAT in the case of ACTT V/s Lalitha Karan

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

depreciable assets, The book value in case of other assets. Net worth is deemed to be the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement for section 48 and section 49 of the Act. As per section 50B, no indexation benefit is available on cost of acquisition, i.e., net worth. 28. Before and after effecting slump sale, the Assessee entered into

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation in earlier years. Accordingly he made a net addition of Rs.5141 crores to the income of the assessee. 6. The ld. AO further found that assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs.147 crores as ESOP expenditure. The ld. AO was explained that these are payment to employees on account of cross-charge of expenditure by the holding company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation in earlier years. Accordingly he made a net addition of Rs.5141 crores to the income of the assessee. 6. The ld. AO further found that assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs.147 crores as ESOP expenditure. The ld. AO was explained that these are payment to employees on account of cross-charge of expenditure by the holding company

ITO, DAVANGERE vs. M/S MAGANAHALLI STEEL CORPORATION, DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 1989-90

depreciation is not allowed since sold during previous year. However, AO is directed to compute capital gain on Income received on transfer of such assets as per section 52(2) of the Act. 6.7 As discussed in above paras, I have gone through facts submitted by appellant and AO and it is seen that as claimed by appellant there cannot

SRI S.R. RAVISHANKAR,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2011-12 Shri.S. R. Ravishankar, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax No.80, 1St Main, Between 3Rd & 4Th (Central), Cross, Chamrajpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 018. Pan : Aclpr 5363 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 O R D E R

depreciation. Therefore, the “Lease Equalisation Fund” was not an issue involved in reassessment proceedings. The learned Commissioner invoked section 263 of the Act and held that the order u/s. 147 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue since the issue regarding the “Lease Equalisation Fund” is not examined in the said order

M/S TRIAD RESORTS AND HOTELS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita No.791-793/Bang/2014 (Asst. Year – 2008-09) 1) M/S Triad Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Ita No.791) 2) M/S Noorani Properties Pvt. Ltd., (Ita No.792) 3)M/S Verde Developers Pvt. Ltd., (Ita No.793) ‘Aparanta’ No.2208, Hal Iii Stage, 80 Ft Road, Kodihalli, Bangalore-560 008. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Bangalore. . Respondent

50C. Thus, the assessee has raised the following grounds before us. ITA No.791-793/B/14 4 1) The order of the learned CIT(A), is so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is against law, weight evidence and probabilities of the case. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of partial cost of acquisition