ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

short\nterm capital gain by the assessee.\n9.\nWe have heard the rival submissions and perused the\nmaterials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the case of\nthe assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS by\nissuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 4.7.2017 which are\nreproduced below for the sake of convenience

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

short\nterm capital gain by the assessee.\n9.\nWe have heard the rival submissions and perused the\nmaterials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the case of\nthe assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS by\nissuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 4.7.2017 which are\nreproduced below for the sake of convenience

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

capital gains, the transaction involving transfer of the nature\nreferred are not required to be registered under Registration Act.\nSuch arrangement does not include transfer of certain rights\nvesting to a purchaser; however, such \"transfer\" does confer\ncertain privileges of constructive ownership with connected bundle\nof rights. Indeed, it is a departure from the commonly understood\nmeaning of the definition

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

short period of time. In this regard, firstly we note that the offline purchase of share is not prohibited under the statute. Secondly the price of the scripts of a company, having no financial base/business activity/profitability certainly gives rise to doubt about such an increase in the price. However, in the given case, the impugned company was engaged in business

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 2 of 16 3. The brief facts are that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act after following the due procedure as envisaged u/s. 148A

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: IT(IT)A No.235/Bang/2025 Navjyoti Sharma, Bangalore Page 2 of 14 3. The brief facts of the case are that as per the specific information flagged as per risk management strategy (RMS) formulated by the CBDT in insight portal under

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

term capital gains of Rs. 1,65,93,642/- was computed and offered to tax by the appellant based on sale consideration received as per sale deed dated 21.03.2016. 8. Thereafter, the case of the appellant was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was issued on the appellant by ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

short term capital gains of Rs. Nil on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the learned Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of a sum of Rs. 8,36,25,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Commissioner

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

short term capital loss of\nRs.3,39,24,000/- and the assesse offered net capital gain of\nRs.317,23,378/-. However, it is seen from the assesse\nsubmission and in his computation of income, the available\nCapital loss of Rs.3,34,14,000/- as under.\nParticulars\nRs.\nCost of investment (34,91,400 shares of\nRs.10 each)\nSale Consideration\nCapital

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: -

transferred in Hassan, the profit from the same is to be assessed under the head LTCG or short term capital gain. The CIT(A) held reversing the AO’s finding that the same should be assessed as LTCG. Consequently appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee filed the present

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/-.\n5.\nAggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned\nCIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 5 notices

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital in nature, without considering the judicial decisions on the issue. 14. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not awaiting the remand report from the Ld AO and erred in confirming the depreciation @ 12.5 %, without any reason. 14.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital in nature, without considering the judicial decisions on the issue. 14. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not awaiting the remand report from the Ld AO and erred in confirming the depreciation @ 12.5 %, without any reason. 14.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

price of IP received by Appellant from its AE i.e., Practo Pte. Ltd., Singapore ought to be treated as capital receipt and not chargeable to income tax. 12.2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP/Learned AO while computing long term capital gain

SHANKARE GOWDA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Shankare Gowda No.2314/A/1681/A, Behind Bescom Office Subhash Nagara Ito Nelamangala Vs. Ward 4(3)(3) Bengaluru Rural 562 123 Bengaluru Karnataka Pan No : Bozpg9856G Appellant Respondent

short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ShankareGowda, Bengaluru Rural Page 2 of 15 ShankareGowda, Bengaluru Rural Page 3 of 15 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.17

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

term "Independently Owned IPR" as understood under the Settlement Agreement which means background IPR which in turn means that is owned or controlled by a party existing prior to the beginning of the joint development project or resulting from activities which are independent from and concurrent with the joint development project. This source code was not a capital asset

M/S. ZASH TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

short “The Act”) should be as per this\n\nPage 3 of 31\n\nprovision or as per sub-clause (iiia) of section 55(2)(aa)(B) of the Act,\ngiven that the later, i.e. sub-clause (iiia) of section 55(2)(aa)(B) of the\nAct has bee made subject to the former i.e. sub-clause (i) of section

SRI. SWAMIAPPAN ARUL KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

short] was conducted on 25 and 26th April 2018 in the following premises i. M/s. AVS Constructions and M/s. AVS Readymix Concrete Products Pvt Ltd (M/s. AVS Tech Building Solutions India Pvt Ltd) No. 298, Sigcot Staff Housing Colony, Hosur - 635126, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. ii. M/s. Gurukrupa Service Station, 58/1, Singasandra, Hosur Road, Bangalore. iii M/s. Gurukrupa Auto Service

SRI. SWAMIAPPAN ANAND KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

short] was conducted on 25 and 26th April 2018 in the following premises i. M/s. AVS Constructions and M/s. AVS Readymix Concrete Products Pvt Ltd (M/s. AVS Tech Building Solutions India Pvt Ltd) No. 298, Sigcot Staff Housing Colony, Hosur - 635126, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. ii. M/s. Gurukrupa Service Station, 58/1, Singasandra, Hosur Road, Bangalore. iii M/s. Gurukrupa Auto Service