DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

capital gain was also earned on\nsale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier\nyear, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than\nthe amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that the\ndisallowance voluntarily made by the assessee would meet the\nrequirements of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

gains of business or profession' (on account of deduction of interest income) would constitute business loss and would be eligible for set-off against income from other sources'. 8. Grounds relating to levy of interest under section 234B and section 234D). 8.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and section 234D. On facts and circumstances

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

gains of business or profession' (on account of deduction of interest income) would constitute business loss and would be eligible for set-off against income from other sources'. 8. Grounds relating to levy of interest under section 234B and section 234D). 8.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and section 234D. On facts and circumstances

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)

gain of INR 3,42,78,18,865, erred in treating the cost of acquisition of all the IPs (including technological IPs) as NIL as per the provisions of section 55(2) of the Act without appreciating that the said provisions do not apply to the technological IPs transferred during the year. 13. Disallowance under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

capital gain was also earned on\nsale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier\nyear, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than\nthe amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that the\ndisallowance voluntarily made by the assessee would meet the\nPage 7 of 26\nrequirements of sec.14A

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

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

gains of business or profession”. Both these sections operate in different fields, the former is an enabling provision while the latter is a disabling provision. Therefore these decisions do not help the plea raised by the Assessee in this appeal. 30. The ld AR also submitted that any sum paid referred in section 40(a)(ii) must be viewed from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

capital gain was also earned on\nsale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier\nyear, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than\nthe amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that the\ndisallowance voluntarily made by the assessee would meet the\nrequirements of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

capital gain was also earned on\nsale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier\nyear, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than\nthe amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that the\ndisallowance voluntarily made by the assessee would meet the\nrequirements of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

capital gain was also earned on\nsale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier\nyear, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than\nthe amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that the\ndisallowance voluntarily made by the assessee would meet the\nrequirements of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

capital gain was also earned on\nsale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier\nyear, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than\nthe amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that the\ndisallowance voluntarily made by the assessee would meet the\nPage 7 of 26\nrequirements of sec.14A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

capital gain was also earned on\nsale of shares of M/s Mindtree limited. We notice that, as in the earlier\nyear, the disallowance made by the assessee voluntarily is more than\nthe amount of exempted income. Hence, we are of the view that the\ndisallowance voluntarily made by the assessee would meet the\nrequirements of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234D of the Act. The ld. A.R. at the outset submitted that the original quantum addition made by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) order is pending before the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that in the meanwhile by way of the 154 order, the ld. AO has enhanced the addition. He prayed that this appeal may also be remanded

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234D of the Act. The ld. A.R. at the outset submitted that the original quantum addition made by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) order is pending before the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that in the meanwhile by way of the 154 order, the ld. AO has enhanced the addition. He prayed that this appeal may also be remanded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234D of the Act. The ld. A.R. at the outset submitted that the original quantum addition made by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) order is pending before the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that in the meanwhile by way of the 154 order, the ld. AO has enhanced the addition. He prayed that this appeal may also be remanded

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234D of the Act. The ld. A.R. at the outset submitted that the original quantum addition made by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) order is pending before the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that in the meanwhile by way of the 154 order, the ld. AO has enhanced the addition. He prayed that this appeal may also be remanded

M/S. METRICSTREAM INFOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

234D of Rs.1,262/-. On the facts and circumstances of the case, interest under various sections of the Act is not leviable. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds/ sub-grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

gainfully refer to the “MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING FINANCE BILL 2013”, which brings out the intention of the Parliament in inserting Explanation-2 in sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It is extracted below:- “Clarification for amount to be eligible for deduction as bad debts in case of banks:- Under the existing provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

gainfully refer to the “MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING FINANCE BILL 2013”, which brings out the intention of the Parliament in inserting Explanation-2 in sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It is extracted below:- “Clarification for amount to be eligible for deduction as bad debts in case of banks:- Under the existing provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income