IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

251 ITR IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 24 of 56 9, wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court CITv. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124 , where in similar circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

251 ITR IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 24 of 56 9, wherein the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court CITv. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124 , where in similar circumstances it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

251 ITR 53 (Mad) and;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT &Ors. vs Bharti Cellular And Others reported in (2008) 175 Taxman 573 13. He submitted that, in these decisions it was held that, provision of cellular services cannot be treated as technical services. Without prejudice, to the above, the Ld.AR placed reliance on Article

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

251 ITR 53 (Mad) and;  decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT &Ors. vs Bharti Cellular And Others reported in (2008) 175 Taxman 573 13. He submitted that, in these decisions it was held that, provision of cellular services cannot be treated as technical services. Without prejudice, to the above, the Ld.AR placed reliance on Article

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Properties India (P) Ltd. 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 Total 6,94,24,909 6,94,24,909 4.1.1 The Assessing Officer noticed that all the investments above were in group companies/concerns and had been made in the interest of the business activity of 3 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 the assessee. Further, majority of the investments above were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Properties India (P) Ltd. 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 Total 6,94,24,909 6,94,24,909 4.1.1 The Assessing Officer noticed that all the investments above were in group companies/concerns and had been made in the interest of the business activity of 3 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 the assessee. Further, majority of the investments above were

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.

1)F or to invest in residential property within the stipulated time for enabling deduction under section 5 4F of the Act. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in decision of CIT vs.Sambandam Udaykumar reported in 251 CTR 371 took the view that, under provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains realised from sale

THE CHITRADURGA CITY MULTI PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY,CHITRADURGA vs. CIT, DAVANGERE

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

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

property and rights of the company, also should be treated as a banking business. No doubt, it is true, as contended by Sri Sesachala that the businesses referred to in clauses (a) to (o) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Regulation Act cannot be treated as a banking business within the meaning of clause (b) of section

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

1)F or to invest in residential property within the stipulated time for enabling deduction under section 5 4F of the Act. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in decision of CIT vs.Sambandam Udaykumar reported in 251 CTR 371 took the view that, under provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains realised from sale

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

251 CTR 317, had taken a view that under the provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition precedent was that the capital gain realized from sale of capital asset should have been parted by the assessee and invested in constructing a residential house. If the money is invested in constructing the residential house, merely because the construction

M/S STERLING DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan

housing projects on certain conditions being fulfilled. The provisions of section 80 IB (13) of the Act, that makes the provisions of section 80 IA(5) applicable to section 80 IB also, applies only ‘so far as may be’. Thus, by virtue of the fact that there is no concept of initial assessment year under section 80IB

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

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

house property of ₹ 100,251,681/–. In the original assessment order, notice under section 143 (2) of the act was undisputedly issued. The DCIT V G Corp P Ltd AY 14-15 Page 9 of 14 xx. He once again referred to in sub section 143 (2), 143 (3) and section 263 of the act and submitted that the order

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

HOUSE PROPERTY 7986790 8716072 9586870 9676227 PGBP 269570718 1237670552 493696985 325550587 STCG 136372 222312 655065 10021 CAPITAL GAIN 12563022 IOS 101974790 51714335 152804718 57852150 TOTAL INCOME 367996150 1286588270 669502500 387279160 RETURN FILED ON139(1) 29.09.2013 28.0902014 30.09.2015 17.10.2016 143 (1) 31.10.2014 1,20,62,015 17.01.2017 80602017 143(3) ( RETURNED INCOME ACCEPTED 29.03.2016 29.12.2016 153C NOTICE

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

HOUSE PROPERTY 7986790 8716072 9586870 9676227 PGBP 269570718 1237670552 493696985 325550587 STCG 136372 222312 655065 10021 CAPITAL GAIN 12563022 IOS 101974790 51714335 152804718 57852150 TOTAL INCOME 367996150 1286588270 669502500 387279160 RETURN FILED ON139(1) 29.09.2013 28.0902014 30.09.2015 17.10.2016 143 (1) 31.10.2014 1,20,62,015 17.01.2017 80602017 143(3) ( RETURNED INCOME ACCEPTED 29.03.2016 29.12.2016 153C NOTICE

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

HOUSE PROPERTY 7986790 8716072 9586870 9676227 PGBP 269570718 1237670552 493696985 325550587 STCG 136372 222312 655065 10021 CAPITAL GAIN 12563022 IOS 101974790 51714335 152804718 57852150 TOTAL INCOME 367996150 1286588270 669502500 387279160 RETURN FILED ON139(1) 29.09.2013 28.0902014 30.09.2015 17.10.2016 143 (1) 31.10.2014 1,20,62,015 17.01.2017 80602017 143(3) ( RETURNED INCOME ACCEPTED 29.03.2016 29.12.2016 153C NOTICE

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

HOUSE PROPERTY 7986790 8716072 9586870 9676227 PGBP 269570718 1237670552 493696985 325550587 STCG 136372 222312 655065 10021 CAPITAL GAIN 12563022 IOS 101974790 51714335 152804718 57852150 TOTAL INCOME 367996150 1286588270 669502500 387279160 RETURN FILED ON139(1) 29.09.2013 28.0902014 30.09.2015 17.10.2016 143 (1) 31.10.2014 1,20,62,015 17.01.2017 80602017 143(3) ( RETURNED INCOME ACCEPTED 29.03.2016 29.12.2016 153C NOTICE

SRI. M N SHESHAGIRI,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

251(1) of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to total income or Rs.38,22,410/- as against the returned income of Rs. 3,64,610/- on the facts

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 SCR 317 : (1969) 1 SCJ 543] that “the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules” and in the same case this Court approved the following observations from the judgment of Tucker, L.J. in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] :“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind