M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

111 Taxman 83/243 ITR 26 has taken the view which is favourable to the Department. This view is followed by the High Court in the impugned judgment thereby dismissing the appeals of the appellants/assessees herein. The assessees in these appeals submit that the aforesaid view taken in Motilal Pesticides (I.) (P.) Ltd. case (supra) is not a correct view

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

111,53,50,377/- as Business income merely on the basis of occupation certificate obtained in the Financial year 2016-17 relevant to the A.Y 201718 without appreciating the fact that the said certificate was not a relevant document for chargeability of Tax relating to transfer of stock in trade in pursuance of the JDA dated

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

111 Taxman 83/243 ITR 26 has taken the view which is favourable to the Department. This view is followed by the High Court in the impugned judgment thereby dismissing the appeals of the appellants/assessees herein. The assessees in these appeals submit that the aforesaid view taken in Motilal Pesticides (I.) (P.) Ltd. case (supra) is not a correct view

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

111 Taxman 83/243 ITR 26 has taken the view which is favourable to the Department. This view is followed by the High Court in the impugned judgment thereby dismissing the appeals of the appellants/assessees herein. The assessees in these appeals submit that the aforesaid view taken in Motilal Pesticides (I.) (P.) Ltd. case (supra) is not a correct view

SRI NEKKUNDI MUNIREDDY THULASIRAM,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain on sale of the flat has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the Act. The facts which we notice in this regard from the statements filed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) is that the flat which was sold by the assessee during the previous year was acquired by the assessee

SRI. GANGA POORNA PRASAD,MYSURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Sri Ganga Poorna Prasad, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #718, Ii Main, 1St Cross, 1St Block, Income Tax, Ramakrishnagar, Circle-2(1), Mysuru – 570 026. Mysuru. Pan : Aiqpp 5131 K Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru

section 148 of the Act, return of income was filed declaring Total Income of Rs. 1,17,59,366.00. The Total income comprised of Income from House Property, Business income and Income for Other Sources offered for taxation in the return of income originally filed earlier and Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 1,15,74,390.00. 7. After

SRI. G.M. SOLOMON RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri G.M.Soloman Raju, No.14/15, Hillside Medows, Hesarghatta Main Road, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore-560097. … Appellant Pa No.Akvps 4688 K Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(4) New No.6(3)(3) Bangalore. … Respondent

111)(b) of this Income Tax Act 1961 and even though the appellant is offered the income wrongly which is against the provisions of the law. 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeal) erred in not following the principle of natural justice, without providing an opportunity to the appellant against the remand report

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

capitalized the exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.39,32,28,754/- in the books for the A.Y.2012-13. The same accounting principle was continued for the A.Y.2014-15 also. The treatment was only for the purpose of requirement of company law. However, as far 39 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 as the provisions of Income Tax Act are concerned the expenditure was allowable as revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

capitalized the exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.39,32,28,754/- in the books for the A.Y.2012-13. The same accounting principle was continued for the A.Y.2014-15 also. The treatment was only for the purpose of requirement of company law. However, as far 39 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 as the provisions of Income Tax Act are concerned the expenditure was allowable as revenue

TATA COFFEE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

section 14A of the Act r.w.s. Rule 8D of the Rules, he disallowed a sum of Rs.6,80,643. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO by following its own order for the AY 2010-11 wherein identical disallowance was confirmed by the DRP. 19. Aggrieved by the order of the DRP, the assessee has raised ground No.12 before

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA COFFEE PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

section 14A of the Act r.w.s. Rule 8D of the Rules, he disallowed a sum of Rs.6,80,643. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO by following its own order for the AY 2010-11 wherein identical disallowance was confirmed by the DRP. 19. Aggrieved by the order of the DRP, the assessee has raised ground No.12 before

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

111 taxmann.com 402). As noticed earlier the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the contention of the assessee that it is not liable to pay tax u/s 115QA would fall under the clause “an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act”. mentioned in clause (a) of sub. Section

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

111 taxmann.com 402). As noticed earlier the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the contention of the assessee that it is not liable to pay tax u/s 115QA would fall under the clause “an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act”. mentioned in clause (a) of sub. Section

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

111 taxmann.com 402). As noticed earlier the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the contention of the assessee that it is not liable to pay tax u/s 115QA would fall under the clause “an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act”. mentioned in clause (a) of sub. Section

MS. PUSPHA RAO PAMIDI,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahums. Pushpa Rao Pamidi Vs Dcit, Circle - 2(1) No. 156/1, C/O T. Viswanath & Co Bengaluru Sharada Mansion, 2Nd Floor R V Road, V V Puram Bengaluru 560004 Pan – Bhhpp1695K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sathish S., Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.07.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit We Find That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Cannot Be Attributed To Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay Of Four Days & Proceed To Dispose Of The Case On Merits.

Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.09.2019. During the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee had received 3 Ms. Pushpa Rao Pamidi consideration of Rs.5,70,0,000/- in respect of sale of immovable property situated in JP Nagar, Bangalore. The assessee had computed the total capital gains in respect of the said

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BOSCH LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains derived from the manufacture of goods in a factory, there shall, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to thirty per cent. of additional wages paid to the new regular workmen employed by the assessee in such factory, in the previous year, for three assessment years including the assessment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from