M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income. Accordingly, ground no. 19 of the Assessee is allowed. 18. The Ground no. 20 of the Appeal is with respect to the correct carry forward of losses. The Assessee has computed the carry forward of the losses

SHOBHA JAIN ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Viib) of the Act. For this proposition of law,\nthe appellant relied upon the order of the co-ordinate bench, in\nthe case of Sri Sandeep Patil vs The Income Tax Officer ITA no.\n924/Bang/2019. Copy of the case law is enclosed.\n9.\nThe appellant also would like to rely upon the order of co-\nordinate bench in the case

M/S MAJJU IMAGE & BRAND CONSULTANTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

house contributed by Mr. Samir Prasad towards the share capital was arrived at Rs.80,25,600/- and the assessee company allotted 4,752 equity shares having face value of Rs. 10/- each, at a premium of Rs.1,662/- per share to him as sale consideration for the immovable property contributed by him towards the share capital. 11. To this extent

M/S PALMER INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

House of Lords in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Bibby & Sons Ltd. [I946]14 ITR 7 (Supp) at 9-10, after examining the meaning of the expressions "control" and "interest", held that controlling interest did not depend upon the extent to which they had the power of controlling votes. Principle that emerges is that where shares in large numbers are transferred

M/S UB SPORTS MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

House of Lords in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Bibby & Sons Ltd. [I946]14 ITR 7 (Supp) at 9-10, after examining the meaning of the expressions "control" and "interest", held that controlling interest did not depend upon the extent to which they had the power of controlling votes. Principle that emerges is that where shares in large numbers are transferred