TRITON VALVES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 7. On merits of the case, the ld. counsel for the assessee’s submission was that the opening stock, purchases as well as sales have to be valued on the same basis as the closing stock is valued in the inclusive method of accounting. For this purpose, he relied on the following case

SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

condoned and the appeal is admitted and heard. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 3 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank and filed the Return of Income electronically on 25.3.2013 with total income of Rs.6,13,770. In the Return of Income filed

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

145A and ICDS II\nwere equally applicable for the said impugned years.\n14. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO\nerred in making the impugned addition by presuming that\nreflection of Rs.20,59,84,960/- under “Any other item or\nitems of addition under section 28 to 44DA” of the revised\nreturn dated 09.02.2021 was towards undervaluation

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original return of income

M/S IDS NEXT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

section 145A should be on the both the credit and debit of the Profit and loss account as the services rendered is not part of the closing stock valuation. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, vary and/ or withdraw any or all of these grounds of appeal. For these and other grounds that may be adduced

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

145A and ICDS II\nwere equally applicable for the said impugned years.\n\n14. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO\nerred in making the impugned addition by presuming that\nreflection of Rs.20,59,84,960/- under “Any other item or\nitems of addition under section 28 to 44DA” of the revised\nreturn dated 09.02.2021 was towards undervaluation

M/S. ABZ FUJITSU GENERAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. (Vice President), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

condonation petition. ii. Rejecting to admit the appeal on the ground of delay without providing a personal hearing to the Appellant. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the action of learned AO in treating contingent liability of Rs. 44,58,57,745/- as not allowable expenditure u/s 37 without appreciating that; a) Such adjustment cannot be made

M/S KEN CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned the delay in filing appeal against the initial appellate order. We shall be dealing with the issue relating to the addition made u/s 43B of the Act in the above said appeal filed against original appellate order. The appeal filed by the assessee against rectification order also deal with the very same issue and hence, there is no necessity

M/S KEN CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned the delay in filing appeal against the initial appellate order. We shall be dealing with the issue relating to the addition made u/s 43B of the Act in the above said appeal filed against original appellate order. The appeal filed by the assessee against rectification order also deal with the very same issue and hence, there is no necessity

M/S RAMESH EXPORTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the first issue involved is regarding disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs.92,82,222/-. He submitted that disallowance was made by the AO and confirmed by learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMESH EXPORTS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 4. In the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that the first issue involved is regarding disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs.92,82,222/-. He submitted that disallowance was made by the AO and confirmed by learned