IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,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

long-term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 29,74,951. The return was processed in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15-3-1999. Subsequently, on the basis of some information with regard to sale proceeds of the shares amounting to Rs. 32,40,385 on which the capital gain was declared

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,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

long-term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 29,74,951. The return was processed in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15-3-1999. Subsequently, on the basis of some information with regard to sale proceeds of the shares amounting to Rs. 32,40,385 on which the capital gain was declared

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

long-term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 29,74,951. The return was processed in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15-3-1999. Subsequently, on the basis of some information with regard to sale proceeds of the shares amounting to Rs. 32,40,385 on which the capital gain was declared

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

long-term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 29,74,951. The return was processed in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15-3-1999. Subsequently, on the basis of some information with regard to sale proceeds of the shares amounting to Rs. 32,40,385 on which the capital gain was declared

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

term capital gain of Rs.34,60,575/- by adopting the 'cost of construction' at Rs.951/- per sq ft as against the cost of Rs.1,790/- considered y the Appellant. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Ld AO adopting the cost of Rs.951/- per sq ft as determined in the order passed by the CIT under

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 6. The learned AO is also not justified in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Page 3 of 12 7. The grounds are taken without prejudice to one another and the Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

Long Term Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Income - Tax Act by disregarding the facts, evidences and reasons and merely on the basis of suspicion, presumptions and without due and independent application of mind on the generalised report of the Investigation Wing of Kolkata, in total defiance of natural justice by denying sharing of the information and evidences

SRI. PADMANABHA MANGALORE CHOWTA,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017 – 18

long term capital gains in the return of income voluntarily filed for the year under appeal under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The levy of penalty u/s 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. UMA RUGMINI, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

penalty proceedings u/s. 271F and 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 3. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and raised several grounds. The assessee had disputed the addition made on the basis of the sales consideration received on the transfer of long term capital asset and also

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAICHUR, RAICHUR vs. MARALBID PADMAVATHI, RAICHUR

In the result, appeal filed by theRevenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Vs. Maralbid Padmavathi, Ward – 1, 4-4-145, Zahirabad Raichur, Raichur. Raichur – 584 101, Karnataka. Pan :Anhpp 8615 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2025

penalty U/s. 271(1)(b) for non compliance is initiated.” 3. In pursuance to notice under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed return of income on 24.04.2021 which was same as original return under section 139 of the Act. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee’s side

MRS. SUREKHA L/R OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAINS ("LTCG"): 8. The CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in computing LTCG of Rs.59,53,488/-. 9. The CIT(A) and AO erred in not appreciating that the proceeds from the sale of property were reinvested by the Appellant and hence, there was no taxable capital gains

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

long-term capital gains since the property sold was agricultural land. Assessee has also placed on record the computation ITA Nos.635, 870, 1128 & 1129/Bang/2024 Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore Page 3 of 5 of statement of total income. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the total income for the relevant Assessment Year of assessee is Rs.13

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

long-term capital gains since the property sold was agricultural land. Assessee has also placed on record the computation ITA Nos.635, 870, 1128 & 1129/Bang/2024 Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore Page 3 of 5 of statement of total income. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the total income for the relevant Assessment Year of assessee is Rs.13

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

long-term capital gains since the property sold was agricultural land. Assessee has also placed on record the computation ITA Nos.635, 870, 1128 & 1129/Bang/2024 Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore Page 3 of 5 of statement of total income. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the total income for the relevant Assessment Year of assessee is Rs.13

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

long-term capital gains since the property sold was agricultural land. Assessee has also placed on record the computation ITA Nos.635, 870, 1128 & 1129/Bang/2024 Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore Page 3 of 5 of statement of total income. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the total income for the relevant Assessment Year of assessee is Rs.13

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

terms hereof 10. Miscellaneous. The Agreement must be construed as if both parties jointly wrote it, governed by Indian law. The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and replaces any other applicable agreements, terms and conditions applicable to the subject matter hereof Any conflicting or additional terms contained

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

terms hereof 10. Miscellaneous. The Agreement must be construed as if both parties jointly wrote it, governed by Indian law. The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and replaces any other applicable agreements, terms and conditions applicable to the subject matter hereof Any conflicting or additional terms contained

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

terms hereof 10. Miscellaneous. The Agreement must be construed as if both parties jointly wrote it, governed by Indian law. The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and replaces any other applicable agreements, terms and conditions applicable to the subject matter hereof Any conflicting or additional terms contained