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

256\n32,44,650\n35,59,584\n11,39,067\n2,50,000\n7,12,500\n5,62,500\n7,58,319\n40,313\n484554\n2,86,24,671\n\n9.4 The AO relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Totgar's Co-operatiye Sale Society (83\nTaxman.com 140) disallowed the deduction

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

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

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

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

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

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

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

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

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

capital gains. Bad debts written off ITA Nos.1211 to 1212 & 1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 23 14. On perusal of the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.30,34,124 as bad debts written off. The AO disallowed the said claim for the reason that

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

section\n56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules\nthe Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to adopt a different\nmethod than the one adopted by the assessee, and if for\nany reason the AO has any doubt recording such\nvaluation report and does not agree with the same is\nbound to make a reference

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

section\n56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules\nthe Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to adopt a different\nmethod than the one adopted by the assessee, and if for\nany reason the AO has any doubt recording such\nvaluation report and does not agree with the same is\nbound to make a reference

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

Section 37 of the Income-tax Act would be relevant. The said provision reads as follows: "SECTION 37 GENERAL: (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes

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

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

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

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains. The AO also pointed out that as per the original debenture purchase agreement, the holder of debentures was entitled to a coupon payment at 13.75%. However, no such coupon or interest income was realized or considered at the time of redemption. The assessee’s claim that waiver of interest was based on an informal agreement was found