DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property\nRs. 4,19,043/-\nB. Business Income\nRs. 4,50,000/-\nC. Short term capital gain taxable at normal rate\nRs. 58,95,682/-\n(Rs. 63,96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461)\nD. Interest Income\nRs. 1,16,275/-\nTotal (A+B+C+D)\nRs. 68,81,000/-\n4.2 Further, the assessee

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

154/- being cost of acquisition of residential property on Site No. 839/21, 37th F Cross, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011 on 10.2.2011 for an amount of Rs. 1,52,02,905/- and construction of residential house on the same property value of Rs. 3,12,13,249/-. 2.1 The Ld.AO observed that assessee also constructed a residential house

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H. Nagin Khincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R. Date of Hearing 04 07 2022 & 03 11 2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 11 2022 ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H. Nagin Khincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R. Date of Hearing 04 07 2022 & 03 11 2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 11 2022 ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Vs. Central Circle-2(1) Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H. Nagin Khincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R. Date of Hearing 04 07 2022 & 03 11 2022 Date of Pronouncement 07 11 2022 ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House property Rs. 4,19,043/- B. Business Income Rs. 4,50,000/- C. Short term capital gain taxable at normal rate Rs. 58,95,682/- (Rs. 63,96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461) D. Interest Income Rs. 1,16,275/- Total (A+B+C+D) Rs. 68,81,000/- 4.2 Further, the assessee against

SRI. SANJAY RAMPRAKASH SAXENA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Sanjay Ramprakash Saxena, Dcit, G1, Smr Devmuk Cpc, Sy. No.97/104, 9Th Main, Vs. Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Vijaya Bank Layout, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aozps 7209 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bharath Shetty, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023

house property of Rs.15,165/- meaning thereby the gross total income declared by the assessee of Rs.16,22,880/- and claimed the deduction under chapter VI A of Rs.1 lakh under section 80C, 80CC, 80CCD and Rs. 16,429/- u/s 80D, the net taxable income was shown as Rs.15,06,451/-. During the course of processing of return under section

VISHNUMPET SUNDARESAN VENKATESH,BENGALURU vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ACIT CIRCLE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2007-08 Shri. Vishnumpet Sundaresan Venkatesh, Vs. Acit, 42, Prestige Woodside, Circle – 6(1), Off Doddaballapur Main Road, Bengaluru. Avalahalli, Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aajpv 5556 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Venkatesh Sundaresan, Assessee Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2023

154 of the Act, only on account of non-granting of the deduction under section 80C of the Act and loss incurred under the head ‘income from house property

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

house property and business income (renumeration and share of profit from partnership firms). For the AY 2021-22, the assessee filed his return of income on 15/03/2022 by declaring total income of Rs.5,07,94,880/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 28/03/2022. Subsequently, the rectification order u/s. 154

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

house property and business income (renumeration and share of profit from partnership firms). For the AY 2021-22, the assessee filed his return of income on 15/03/2022 by declaring total income of Rs.5,07,94,880/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 28/03/2022. Subsequently, the rectification order u/s. 154

G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

House Property, the\nAssessing Officer is required to allow full\ndeduction for the same amount collected\nand retained by Lido while determining\nthe Annual value of the property under\nsection 23 of the Income-tax Act.\nWithout Prejudice to Ground Nos.3 to 5,\nCAM charges could only be taxed as\nBusiness Income in the hands of the\nAppellant

VINOD PRASAD INJETI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, we reverse the orders of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

154 of the Act. It erroneously concluded that the latest dated sale deed superseded the other deeds in question and determined the cost of purchase at Rs. 43,12,170/-only and failed to consider the actual cost incurred and paid by the Appellant towards the construction of the house. 9. The Learned AO has erred in adding interest under

PALLASANNA KRISHNA SUBRAMANIAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property and income from other sources. The gross total income of the assessee was Rs.36,51,368/- and claimed deduction under Chapter VI A of Rs.1,10,000/-. Accordingly, the return of income declared of Rs.35,44,370/- and filed return of income on 29/07/2013. The return of income of the assessee was processed

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

house during the assessment year 2013-14 and hence not entitled for claim u/s. 54F. The AO passed an assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 21.03.2018 disallowing the claim u/s. 54F and recomputed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,50,88,284. Aggrieved Page 4 of 23 the assessee filed an appeal before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

154/- comprising of Rs.3,48,933/- being house property income, Rs.3,12,000/- being income from business and Rs.5,35,21/- being income from other sources. Apart from these the assessee also offered agricultural income of Rs. 9,00,000/- for the rate purposes. Notice under Section

ITO WARD - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 154 of the Act dated 04.02.2015, determining adjustment in respect of the SDR segment. The Ld.TPO under 154 proceedings observed that, for SDR segment, the assessee used RPM as the most appropriate method and PLI was computed at 41.79% by using GP/sales. The assessee used following 8 comparables having average margin of 19.83%: Sl. No. Name of the company

NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 154 of the Act dated 04.02.2015, determining adjustment in respect of the SDR segment. The Ld.TPO under 154 proceedings observed that, for SDR segment, the assessee used RPM as the most appropriate method and PLI was computed at 41.79% by using GP/sales. The assessee used following 8 comparables having average margin of 19.83%: Sl. No. Name of the company

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

housing loan from HDFC Bank to the extent of Rs.55,00,000/-. The statement of HDFC Loan account was also submitted before the AO and as well as DRP. Further, with regard to balance of funding to the extent of Rs.14,00,000/- for the property, the assessee explained as below- 1. Rs.5,00,000/- was paid through vide

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUNI REDDY SANTHOSH REDDY, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

house, hence it is proposed to disallow the exemption allowed amounting to Rs. 82,50,000 .............. the assessee". This is incorrect as the appellant has complied with the conditions stipulated under section 54 - i.e (a) reinvestment of capital gain in a residential property and (b) construction of residential property within three years from date of transfer. Therefore, it is incorrect