THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) gave full relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made towards bad debts written off. With regard to unexplained expenditure incurred towards property improvement, the CIT(A) gave partial relief

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) gave full relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made towards bad debts written off. With regard to unexplained expenditure incurred towards property improvement, the CIT(A) gave partial relief

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S OLIVIYA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) gave full relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made towards bad debts written off. With regard to unexplained expenditure incurred towards property improvement, the CIT(A) gave partial relief

M/S. OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) gave full relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made towards bad debts written off. With regard to unexplained expenditure incurred towards property improvement, the CIT(A) gave partial relief

M/S OLIVIA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

1,44,00,000 – – Unexplained gain on – – 6,07,621 sale of mutual fund 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) gave full relief to the assessee in respect of the addition made towards bad debts written off. With regard to unexplained expenditure incurred towards property improvement, the CIT(A) gave partial relief

MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

gains of\nRs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had been claimed u/s 54F\nof the IT Act....\n4.3 Thus he submitted that it is grossly incorrect to initiate 263\nproceedings on the ground of no enquiry or inadequate inquiry.\nConsequently, the order of the AO dt.28.12.2019 is neither\nerroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

MAHESH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

gains of\nRs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had been claimed u/s 54F\nof the IT Act....\n4.3 Thus he submitted that it is grossly incorrect to initiate 263\nproceedings on the ground of no enquiry or inadequate inquiry.\nConsequently, the order of the AO dt.28.12.2019 is neither\nerroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

256 ITR 1 (Delhi)  Interglobe Technology Quotient (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in (2024) 163 taxmann.com 542 (Delhi-Trib) 8. The learned DR strongly supported the Orders of the AO and DRP. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee for the relevant Assessment Year had incurred CSR expenditure amounting to Rs.2

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

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

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

gains derived from any industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production . IT(TP)A No.446 & 593/Bang/2020 Page 13 of 41 of article or thing. Admittedly this condition is satisfied in the case of the Assessee. 2. There are certain prohibition laid down in Sec. 80JJAA(2) of the Act and it is not the case of the Ld.AO that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

gains derived from any industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production . IT(TP)A No.446 & 593/Bang/2020 Page 13 of 41 of article or thing. Admittedly this condition is satisfied in the case of the Assessee. 2. There are certain prohibition laid down in Sec. 80JJAA(2) of the Act and it is not the case of the Ld.AO that

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

Capital Gains’. After satisfying himself on the above issue, the assessing officer issued another notice u/s. 142(1) dated 25.11.2016 seeking details of deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act. The assessing officer has requested for approval of the Pr. CIT for converting the case from limited to complete scrutiny. The approval was communicated to assessing officer on 29.11.2016. However

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

1) of the Act was issued to the\nassessee seeking certain information and documents. In response\nto the same, the assessee made its submissions by a letter dated\n15.02.2021. The assessee society claims that the deduction u/s\n80P(2)(d) on the interest earned from FDs with other co-operative\nsocieties/ Co-operative banks cannot be denied. Upon perusal

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

capital expenditure c) It is not personal expenditure of the assessee d) It has been incurred in the previous year e) It is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. f) It is not been incurred for any purpose which is an offence or is prohibited by any law. Page 16 5.8 The Ld.AR placed

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for. Accordingly, Grounds No.7 to 7.3 in ITA No.1044/Del/2014 pertaining

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

256/- respectively for both the\n Assessment Years. Assessee's submissions were not accepted by the AO and\nthe AO has applied section 14A r.w.r. 8D(ii) of the Rules and computed\ndisallowance after relying on various judgments as mentioned in his order.\n4.\nFurther, the AO noted that there is a difference in the interest income\nreported

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

256/- respectively for both the\n Assessment Years. Assessee's submissions were not accepted by the AO and\nthe AO has applied section 14A r.w.r. 8D(ii) of the Rules and computed\ndisallowance after relying on various judgments as mentioned in his order.\n4.\nFurther, the AO noted that there is a difference in the interest income\nreported