DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

x. The learned authorities below placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Court in the case of Agra Portfolio Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Ward 1(4), New Delhi in ITA No. 2189/De/2018 dated 16.05.2018, however, the learned authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has recently passed a judgement

M/S. GMR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2310/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Dy.Commissioner Of (Successor To Gmr Holdings P.Ltd) Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(2) V. Bangalore. No.25/1 Skip House, Museum Rd. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccr1554R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Yogesh Thar, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per Bench:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 14.10.20199 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds & Various Sub Grounds. The Assessee By Its Application Dated 13.07.2020 Has Also Raised An Additional Ground. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted That Grounds No.Ii & Iii May Be Adjudicated & The Other Grounds May Be Left Open. Therefore, Grounds No.Ii & Iii Are Reproduced Below:-

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules the Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to adopt a different method than the one adopted by the assessee, and if 10 IT(TP)A No.2310/Bang/2019. M/s GMR Enterprises Private Limited. for any reason the AO has any doubt recording such valuation report and does

M/S FLUTURA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.3404(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/S Flutura Business Solutions Pvt.Ltd., G-1, Gurupriya Seventh Hill, Bg 12/2/13, 4Th Cross, Iti Hbcs Layout, Bsk 3Rd Stage, Bengaluru-560 004 Pan No.Aabcf9125B Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Room No.209, 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building, Koramanagala, Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri C.Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri Priyadharshini Misra, Addl.Cit

depreciation 14,49,282 ----------------- Revised total income 2,28,37,385 ----------------- 3. The Assessing Officer has brought to tax the share premium of Rs.2,29,31,200/- as income invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. As per the provisions of sec.56(2)(viib) of the Act, if a company in which public are not substantially

M/S. MOBICOM TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2016-17

section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely: - the fair market value of unquoted equity Page 4 1. Shares = (A-L) x (PV) (PE) where, A = book value of the assets in the balance

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

56. The aforesaid clause is applicable to the transfer of RDB business by IRIL to the Assessee as it was part of the global agreement to take over RDB business of IR worldwide, In terms of the said clause(s), Ingersoll Rand (India) Limited agreed, inter-alia, not to engage directly/indirectly in the business similar

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

56(2) (viib) of the Act. Thus such capital account transaction not falling within a statutory exception cannot be brought to tax as already discussed herein above while considering the challenge to the grounds as mentioned in the impugned order. 39. In tax jurisprudence, it is well settled that following four factors are essential ingredients to a taxing statute

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

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

56,02,560 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

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

56,02,560 - 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

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

56,02,560 - 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

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

56,02,560 - 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

56,02,560 | 23,01,09,276 | 1,41,85,547 | 24,42,94,823 | 2017-18 | 20,40,17,960 | 22,48,58,255 | 2,06,38,910 | 31,36,48,443 | 2018-19 | 43,78,88,596 | - | - | 79,79,183 | 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A