NADATHUR ESTATES PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D amounting to Rs.6,15,23,280/- should be fully deleted. 8. Addition under section 50C

NADATHUR ESTATES PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D amounting to Rs.6,15,23,280/- should be fully deleted. 8. Addition under section 50C

V.S. CHANDRA SHEKAR vs. ACIT,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in favour of the petitioner- assessee, and consequent thereto, the dispute about the business loss as claimed by the petitioner and disallowed

SRI SIMHADRI KRISHNAMURTHY,SINDHANOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , RAICHUR

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

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

disallowance of the commission paid of Rs. 8,05,406/- (i.e. Rs. 2,92,532/- + Rs.5,12,874/-) solely relying on the observation of the assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring the fact that the commission paid was in the normal course of business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

50C is not applicable in the case of purchaser and this provision being a deeming provision will apply for determining the full value of consideration as a result of transfer of capital assets for the purposes of computation of capital gains u/s.48 of the Act. We further find that there is no evidence on record to show that the consideration

SMT. SARITHA JAIN,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-1(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 51/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Saritha Jain, The Income Tax Flat No. 3, 28/1, Officer Gowri Kunj, (International Palace Cross Road, Taxation), Vasanth Nagar, Ward – 1(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aedpj9216L Appellant Respondent

section 50C(2) of the Act and any addition without reference is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The authorities below are not justified in law in disallowing

SMT. G N LAKSHMI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2012 – 13 Smt. G. N. Lakshmi, Represented By Poa Holder Sri G. R. Nagaraj, Vs. Ito, Ward – 5 (2) (3), No. 11, Rajathagiri, Rangarao Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560004 Pan: Aocpg8316F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth G. S., C. A. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

disallowance of the claim of Rs. 78 Lacs u/s 54F of I. T. Act. The second grievance is about invoking of section 50C

MR.NAVEEN CARIAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowances made by the respondent officer are incorrect, improper, unlawful and opposed to facts of the case and law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-1 erred in upholding the assessment of 50% of the sum of Rs.65,53,068/- as income in the hands of the appellant u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Mr. Naveen Cariappa, Bengaluru

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowing expenditure. The quantification of expenditure was done by adding to the cost price, profit margin which Assessees engaged in similar business would earn and reducing therefrom the actual sale value realised by the Assessee. The question is whether the course of action adopted by the AO was permissible under the Act. 51. The relevant statutory provisions

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

disallowance of the interest. The Assessing Officer has invoked section 50C to ITA Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 16 hold

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

disallowance of the interest. The Assessing Officer has invoked section 50C to ITA Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 16 hold

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

disallowance of the interest. The Assessing Officer has invoked section 50C to ITA Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 16 hold

UNIVERSAL POWER TRANSFORMER PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

50C of the Act, the AO ought to have referred the matter to the valuation officer. 7. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in adopting the stamp duty value in respect of a converted land when the agreement was for sale of agricultural land. 8. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts

SRI.SYED FAZAL AHMED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13

section 50C[2] of the Act, consequently, the addition made requires to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and the Stay Petition filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

Section 50C of the Act and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that in view of the facts of the case as brought out in paras 4.1.1 to 4.1.3 of this order (supra), it is amply clear that the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is perverse; in absolute violation

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

50C of the Act, where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed 110% of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48 of the Act, be deemed

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

50C of the Act, where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed 110% of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48 of the Act, be deemed

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

50C Provision for full value of consideration in certain cases (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred