SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

206 ITR 727 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, wherein it was held that the Tribunal is bound by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court within whose jurisdiction it functions. The Hon’ble Court also clarified that decisions of other High Courts have only persuasive value. The relevant finding is extracted below: For deciding whose decision

MERCHANTS CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

206. Dist. Bagalkot. PAN : AAAAM 0702C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ashok Mudnur, CA Respondent by : Shri Mehere Yogesh Prabhakara Rao, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 10.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 24.08.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is against the DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051572681(1) dated 29.03.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that "There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above noted factors

SHREE JAGADGURU MOUNESHWAR PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT KERUR,BAGALKOT, KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

206. PAN: AALAS 7428L APPELLANT Ward 1, Bagalkot. RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Prasanna N. Urala, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date of hearing : 21.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.11.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

GANGOTHRI VENTURES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

68 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no unexplained credit. Hence, section 69C/68 of the Act is not applicable. Section 69C of the Act is applicable with regard to any unexplained expenditure in the financial year which is in the opinion of the ld. AO not satisfactorily explained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

206/-, arising on slump sale of ‘Splash’ division as per section 50B of the Act, and the computation was determined to be as under: Particulars Amount in Rs. Book value of the Division 22,35,71,677 Net-worth of the Division as 23,66,68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

68 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 69 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 70 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 71 of 155 ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 ITA Nos.1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 Page 72 of 155 15. On the other hand, the learned DR relied

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] ¬6, Bengaluru, dated 25/11/2019

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] ¬6, Bengaluru, dated 25/11/2019

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] ¬6, Bengaluru, dated 25/11/2019

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 in respect of amount redeposited was justified. In view of the foregoing discussion, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant fail.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals] ¬6, Bengaluru, dated 25/11/2019

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

206, order giving effect, – 44, rectification – 48, modified assessment orders – 11, verification – 26, deemed information – 6, and notice under section 153C – 7 were pending with him. Therefore, the total No. of 541 actions were pending in the month of March. 8. Over and above, it was stated that there were more than 73 audit objections having tax impact

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

sections 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 20. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” Assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 (ITA No.738/Bang/2015). 4. Before us, apart from putting forth oral

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

section 10AA of the Act. Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed. 16. Ground nos. 41 & 42 - Reduction of deduction under section 10AA in respect of pure onsite revenue 16.1 It was submitted that a software development project typically goes through the stages of requirement analysis, prototyping, design, pilots, programming, testing and installation and maintenance

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

68, 69, 69A to 69D of the Act. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made on few loose sheets of Papers unless the AO brings on record some independent and corroborative materials to Prove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or Unaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. As discussed