MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

section 2(14) of the Income- tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. According to the Ld. A.R., the sale of agricultural land outside municipal limit has to be treated as agricultural land and should be exempted u/s 10(1) of the Act. However, the A.O. held that the land was converted for non- agricultural purposes before execution of sale

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

section 2(14) of the Act. According to the Ld. A.R., the sale of agricultural land outside municipal limit is to be treated as agricultural land and should be exempted u/s 10(1) of the Act. However, the A.O. held that, the land was converted for non- agricultural purposes before execution of sale deed, therefore, it is a capital asset

SKF TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

2 u/s.144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961('the Act' in short), for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. 02. Except for two grounds relating to claim for carry forward loss and disallowance of group information technology (IT) expenditure twice, appearing in the appeals for A. Ys. 2007-08, the other grounds are common for both

M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. That the contention in the appeal filed by the Revenue is bad in law in stating that the Learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the interest expenditure of INR 156,893,828 incurred for CCDs which are actually Equity capital in nature of FDI as per RBI guidelines. That the Respondent craves leave to add to and/or

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. That the contention in the appeal filed by the Revenue is bad in law in stating that the Learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the interest expenditure of INR 156,893,828 incurred for CCDs which are actually Equity capital in nature of FDI as per RBI guidelines. That the Respondent craves leave to add to and/or

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

14 of 19 reliance on certain judicial pronouncements, which have been duly perused. With due regard to the ratio of the judgments as invoked, it is necessary to appreciate that the peculiar facts & circumstances obtaining in each case, are of paramount importance; for the applicability of the same. In this view of the matter, I find clear distinguishing factors

M/S.SOFTTEK INDIA PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT- CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

14 of 21 92C existed and then he could proceed to determine the arm's length price in relation to the international transactions in question in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 92C on the basis of such material or information or document available with him. After the Transfer

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

Transfer Scheme), Rule 2001 and is not required to and has not been strictly preparing its audited annual account as per Parts II and III of Schedule-6 of the Companies Act, 1956. 24.6 Further contention of the Learned AR remained that prior to the amendment to sub-section (2) of sec. 115JB of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

Transfer Scheme), Rule 2001 and is not required to and has not been strictly preparing its audited annual account as per Parts II and III of Schedule-6 of the Companies Act, 1956. 24.6 Further contention of the Learned AR remained that prior to the amendment to sub-section (2) of sec. 115JB of the Income

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received. 3.14 Hence, it is submitted that the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) can be invoked only if, under the specific facts and circumstances, the case falls within the mischief as envisaged by the Legislature. ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also produced details of RTC. SL No. AY Agri Land Holding Income earned 1,75,000/- 1 2006-07 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,50,000/- 2 2007-08 30 Acres 3 Guntas

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also produced details of RTC. SL No. AY Agri Land Holding Income earned 1,75,000/- 1 2006-07 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,50,000/- 2 2007-08 30 Acres 3 Guntas