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:- The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,00,000 under section 50C in respect of sale of 2

MRS SHANTHAMMA MARGAMAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Shanthamma Margamappa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.203, Agara Village, Ward - 4(3)(4), H S R Layout Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 102. Pan : Atmpm 5572 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Lakshmi K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019

2) Act, 2004" [8] Their Lordships were pleased to hold that this reasoning and rationale of this decision "merits acceptance". The same principle, when applied in the present context, leads to the conclusion that the present amendment, being an amendment to remove an apparent incongruity which resulted in undue hardships to the taxpayers, should be treated as retrospective in effect

MR.SANTHOSH GOKUL REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

2) Act, 2004" [8] Their Lordships were pleased to hold that this reasoning and rationale of this decision "merits acceptance". The same principle, when applied in the present context, leads to the conclusion that the present amendment, being an amendment to remove an apparent incongruity which resulted in undue hardships to the taxpayers, should be treated as retrospective in effect

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

2. Later, the assessee filed petition for review of order in RP No.281/2022, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 31.3.2023 observed as under: “In view of the modification of the judgement dated 02.02.2021 passed in ITA No.70/15, this review petition is disposed of.” V.S. Chandrashekhar, Bangalore Page 4 of 6 2.1 Further, ITA No.1/2024 vide order dated

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

Section 40(A)(2)(a) of . ITA No.330,331,496,543 &544/Bang/2024 S.A No.25/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 46 the Act applies viz., where the parties to the transaction are related. Following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the AO was not right in proceeding to ignore the books results of the Assessee and resorting to a process of estimating total

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

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

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.

2(28A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the processing fee of 255.00.000/- as deduction under section 24(b) while computing the property income. The appeal is allowed. 6. ITA No: 4526/Mum/2010 is the appeal by the department, in which the order of the CIT(A) is questioned, in so far as it relates to the deletion

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.

2(28A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the processing fee of 255.00.000/- as deduction under section 24(b) while computing the property income. The appeal is allowed. 6. ITA No: 4526/Mum/2010 is the appeal by the department, in which the order of the CIT(A) is questioned, in so far as it relates to the deletion

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.

2(28A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the processing fee of 255.00.000/- as deduction under section 24(b) while computing the property income. The appeal is allowed. 6. ITA No: 4526/Mum/2010 is the appeal by the department, in which the order of the CIT(A) is questioned, in so far as it relates to the deletion

M/S FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

50C(1) Special 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

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

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. 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

2. The assessee has raised as many as 14 Grounds of appeal but the effective grievances are two only. First effective grievance is about disallowance of the claim of Rs. 78 Lacs u/s 54F of I. T. Act. The second grievance is about invoking of section 50C

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

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

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

M/S. SWETHA HEALTH RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

disallowance by Ld.AO and applying provisions of section 50C by Ld.CIT(A) is as under: “From the description of the property given in both the partnership deed and the Sale Deed, it is apparent that the property in question was not simply a vacant site as claimed by the appellant but had a building constructed on it and consequently

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

Section 40(A)(2)(a) of the Act applies viz., where the parties to the transaction are related. Following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the AO was not right in proceeding to ignore the books results of the Assessee and resorting to a process of estimating total income of the Assessee in the manner in which