DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

10. Before us, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that apart from the know how and technology information of the assessee under the collaboration agreement with Bosch, the assessee has also attained certain application engineering results and hence, developed certain know how, data and experience in the manufacturing of contract over the period of time. Thus

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

10. Aggrieved, the assessee has now filed appeal before the Tribunal . It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no double deduction as both the deductions operate on different field as interest on housing loan is allowed as deduction under section 24(b) , while interest paid on the housing loan is added to cost of acquisition

M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

section 27(iiib) of the Act. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, where the income may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be treated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business of the assessee. What is the test which has to be applied to determine whether

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

10 of 110 Central Government and get the approval of the prescribed authority. In the present case the fresh claim is made by the assessee with regard to conducting scientific research. Hence the burden is on the assessee to refer the matter to the prescribed authority for certificate. The assessee informed the Panel vide letter dated 24/09/2019 that it filed

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 35 of the Income Tax Act on 31/03/2015 but no approval is granted till date. Considering the fact that the assessee has applied for recognizing its activities as “scientific research" and DSIR has not granted the approval even after four and half years clearly show that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Sec 35. Hence this contention

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act.” 6. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee argued that the provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

10 of 14 income from house property to be eligible for the benefit of deduction u/s. 24(a) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the rental agreements executed by 27. the assessee with its tenants required the tenants to pay apart from the rent, the charges for parking facility provided which the AO had failed to consider

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

property developer carrying on several housing projects in the city of Bangalore and other metros in India. The addition challenged in ground No.2 by the revenue is a sum of Rs.5,06,11,025. This comprises of two sums viz., a sum of Rs.1,55,18,769 and another sum of Rs.3,50,92,256. 5. Addition

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

35 nor the same had been filed by her as additional grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal is very specific and relates to investment of Rs 1,26,00,000/- in purchase of agricultural land. So this cannot be extended to include all claims related to Section 54 of the Act. Since the ground of appeal sought

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

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

section 14A of the Act. The assessee explained before the AO that the investments which are likely to earn tax free income were made by the assessee out of his own funds and therefore there was no interest expenditure which can be attributed to earning of exempt income. The assessee took a stand that the assessee had sufficient capital

V.ANANTHA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

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

section 14A of the Act. The assessee explained before the AO that the investments which are likely to earn tax free income were made by the assessee out of his own funds and therefore there was no interest expenditure which can be attributed to earning of exempt income. The assessee took a stand that the assessee had sufficient capital

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.

House Property', erred in disallowing the interest on capital borrowed and used for acquiring the said building complex. 2.7. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer having allowed interest in respect of Rs. 45 Crores which was utilised towards re-payment of old loan, have erred in disallowing interest in respect of balance Rs. 19.50 Crores which was utilised

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.

House Property', erred in disallowing the interest on capital borrowed and used for acquiring the said building complex. 2.7. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer having allowed interest in respect of Rs. 45 Crores which was utilised towards re-payment of old loan, have erred in disallowing interest in respect of balance Rs. 19.50 Crores which was utilised

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.

House Property', erred in disallowing the interest on capital borrowed and used for acquiring the said building complex. 2.7. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Learned Assessing Officer having allowed interest in respect of Rs. 45 Crores which was utilised towards re-payment of old loan, have erred in disallowing interest in respect of balance Rs. 19.50 Crores which was utilised

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property at Delhi on 07/09/2015 for a total consideration of Rs. 70,00,000/- which was originally purchased on 04/06/2007 for a consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-, the index cost of acquisition being Rs.33,35,209/-. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the long term capital gain as computed by the assessee amounting to Rs.36

M/S MANJUNATHA LAND DEVELOPERS AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.642/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S. Manjunatha Land Developers & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, No.849, 1St Floor, 12Th Cross, 4Th Main, 1St Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038 .. Appellant Pan : Aadcm9356M V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -12(1), Bangalore .. Respondent

35 and 36 of the paper book clearly showed that the plan included therein Lake City Residence, Lake Glacier, Lake Beauty, Lake Enclave altogether known as Lake City Residential complex. As per the Ld. AR the official memorandum dt.19.10.2004 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, had clearly stated that land in Sy.No.50/1 came to 3.36 acres

M/S TATA HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY COMPANY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Property Rights (IPR) which were capitalised in the Books of Accounts. The tax payer spent further amounts in developing and improving the same. The expenditure incurred on improvement were also capitalised in the books of account. While the amount spent on acquiring the IPR were not allowed as deduction u/s. 35 of the Act, the expenditure incurred in-house

M/S. DEEPALI COMPANY PRIVAE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax (Earlier Known As :Deepali Co. Officer, Pvt. Ltd.) Ward – 2 (1)(2), 35, Commercial Street, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Pan: Aaacd5120H Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 03.0.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2016-17 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Not Allowing Business Loss For The Year Of Rs. 114,66.766/- On The Ground That The Business Of The Assessee Company Is Closed & There Are No Receipts From Operation Of Business.

35, Commercial Street, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. PAN: AAACD5120H APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee by Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue by Basaganni, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 03.0.2020 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-2, Bangalore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. N G BALU REDDY HUF, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

section 147, of the LT Act, on 08.03.20 13 in the case of HUF for the assessment year 2009-10 on the basis of submission furnished by G.Anitha (Individual) during the re-opened assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005-06 on 17.0 1.2013 stating that the property in question is HUF property of N.G.Balu Reddy". 2. On the facts