DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

section 2(22)(e) of the Act shall have application, on fulfillment of all other conditions, in respect to any payment made after 31.5.1987, by a closely held company, of any sum by way of advance or Loan to: (a) a shareholder, who is the beneficial owner of shares holding not Less than 10% of the voting power

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. If the conditions of the first proviso to section 12B(2) are not satisfied the main part of section 12B(2) applies and the Income-tax Officer must take into account the full value

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

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

2 per cent. Singapo 133782 3.63 per 165523 6.3 7659 4430 12089 4.3 47.926 re cent. 9 per cent. C& 3684497 100 per 262736 100 210949 70316 281265 100 517.083 W Asia cent. 33 per per cent. cent. IT(TP)A.1481/B/2010 & IT(TP)A.1339/Bang/2011 Page - 20 31. As explained, for 82.44 per cent. share of the revenue from

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

Section 28. Therefore, for any amount claimed as ITA No. 2006/Bang/2017, IT(TP)A Nos. 63 & 84/Bang/2015, 599, 2060 & 2178/Bang/2016 & C.O. Nos. 83/Bang/2017 & 09/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 48 deduction it should be in the nature of interest. Further, the interest should be in respect to borrowed Capital. 1.2 Borrowed Capital is 'Debt' and it is different from equity capital

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

Section 28. Therefore, for any amount claimed as ITA No. 2006/Bang/2017, IT(TP)A Nos. 63 & 84/Bang/2015, 599, 2060 & 2178/Bang/2016 & C.O. Nos. 83/Bang/2017 & 09/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 48 deduction it should be in the nature of interest. Further, the interest should be in respect to borrowed Capital. 1.2 Borrowed Capital is 'Debt' and it is different from equity capital

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. There is no dispute regarding the other condition of the holding company having a voting power of not less than 10% as it holds the shares of the assessee to the extent of 99.99%. In case the buy back price is not based on the real valuation and it is artificially inflated

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

E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-4, Bangalore dated 14.12.2017for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under. “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT) erred in upholding the order

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

section 115O(6). (vi) Grounds 8 to 12 – Alternative conclusion of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e). (vii) Grounds 13 to 15 – Alternate grounds raised without prejudice to the above grounds. 7. The assessee raised 15 grounds and several sub-grounds on issues listed above and presented arguments with regard to the same during the course of hearing. Though

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

section 115O(6). (vi) Grounds 8 to 12 – Alternative conclusion of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e). (vii) Grounds 13 to 15 – Alternate grounds raised without prejudice to the above grounds. 7. The assessee raised 15 grounds and several sub-grounds on issues listed above and presented arguments with regard to the same during the course of hearing. Though

M/S. EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

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

22)(e) of the Act (both factual and legal) can be determined, were submitted during the course of the assessment and reassessment proceedings and examined by the Ld. AO. Accordingly, the assessment order passed cannot be treated as erroneous as all the relevant conditions and criteria were examined and considered at the time of assessment and reassessment proceedings. xiii

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

22 of 48 (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001 and provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 to the extent the same are not inconsistent with the Electricity Act/DERC Regulation. It was submitted in other words that in case of any variation/conflict in the aforesaid provisions, the assessee is bound to mandatorily follow/adopt the specific

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

price. These rates act as restrictions on creation of any surplus. Therefore, there is no scope / potential for private profits. 3.16.2 The said estimation will then be approved by the Project Director (ex-officio member), and the same would be sent to KARNIK head office or PWD or PRAD for technical sanction/scrutiny. 3.16.3 Once project is sanctioned by Technical Advisory

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

price. These rates act as restrictions on creation of any surplus. Therefore, there is no scope / potential for private profits. 3.16.2 The said estimation will then be approved by the Project Director (ex-officio member), and the same would be sent to KARNIK head office or PWD or PRAD for technical sanction/scrutiny. 3.16.3 Once project is sanctioned by Technical Advisory

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

price. These rates act as restrictions on creation of any surplus. Therefore, there is no scope / potential for private profits. 3.16.2 The said estimation will then be approved by the Project Director (ex-officio member), and the same would be sent to KARNIK head office or PWD or PRAD for technical sanction/scrutiny. 3.16.3 Once project is sanctioned by Technical Advisory

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

price. These rates act as restrictions on creation of any surplus. Therefore, there is no scope / potential for private profits. 3.16.2 The said estimation will then be approved by the Project Director (ex-officio member), and the same would be sent to KARNIK head office or PWD or PRAD for technical sanction/scrutiny. 3.16.3 Once project is sanctioned by Technical Advisory

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

price. These rates act as restrictions on creation of any surplus. Therefore, there is no scope / potential for private profits. 3.16.2 The said estimation will then be approved by the Project Director (ex-officio member), and the same would be sent to KARNIK head office or PWD or PRAD for technical sanction/scrutiny. 3.16.3 Once project is sanctioned by Technical Advisory

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

price. These rates act as restrictions on creation of any surplus. Therefore, there is no scope / potential for private profits. 3.16.2 The said estimation will then be approved by the Project Director (ex-officio member), and the same would be sent to KARNIK head office or PWD or PRAD for technical sanction/scrutiny. 3.16.3 Once project is sanctioned by Technical Advisory

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

price. These rates act as restrictions on creation of any surplus. Therefore, there is no scope / potential for private profits. 3.16.2 The said estimation will then be approved by the Project Director (ex-officio member), and the same would be sent to KARNIK head office or PWD or PRAD for technical sanction/scrutiny. 3.16.3 Once project is sanctioned by Technical Advisory