M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 115JB Addition to book 5 Assessee appeal profits Deduction u/s. ‘6. Assessee appeal 36(1)(vii) 8. RBI Penalty Assessee appeal Deduction u/s. i & ii Revenue appeal 36(1)(vii) iii-iv CSR Expenditure Revenue appeal vii-viii RBI penalty Revenue appeal ix Club Expenses Revenue appeal 5. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in condoned. Assessment Year 2012-13: 2. At the very outset of the matter, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the ground challenging the reopening of assessment under section 148 though raised by the assessee in each year are not pressed. Hence this particular ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The cross objections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in condoned. Assessment Year 2012-13: 2. At the very outset of the matter, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the ground challenging the reopening of assessment under section 148 though raised by the assessee in each year are not pressed. Hence this particular ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The cross objections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in condoned. Assessment Year 2012-13: 2. At the very outset of the matter, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the ground challenging the reopening of assessment under section 148 though raised by the assessee in each year are not pressed. Hence this particular ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The cross objections

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condonation of delay 4. Notice dated 01.12.2022 07.12.2022 No compliance 2.2 Finally, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay for 4 days in both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.532/Bang/2024 (AY 2015-16): 2. Facts of the issue in this appeal are that the appellant, engaged in real estate project development in Bangalore and affiliated with various grot+ companies and firms, was subject to a search and seizure operation under 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

condonation of delay, if any. With these observations, the additional ground by the assessee for all the assessment years is dismissed. 11. The brief facts of the case are that assessee was incorporated on 21.07.2006 under the Companies Act with following JV Companies viz., IndianOil, IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Limited (IOT I & ESL) and Skytanking, Germany with equal participation

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

condonation of delay, if any. With these observations, the additional ground by the assessee for all the assessment years is dismissed. 11. The brief facts of the case are that assessee was incorporated on 21.07.2006 under the Companies Act with following JV Companies viz., IndianOil, IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Limited (IOT I & ESL) and Skytanking, Germany with equal participation

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

condonation of delay, if any. With these observations, the additional ground by the assessee for all the assessment years is dismissed. 11. The brief facts of the case are that assessee was incorporated on 21.07.2006 under the Companies Act with following JV Companies viz., IndianOil, IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Limited (IOT I & ESL) and Skytanking, Germany with equal participation

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

vii) Now coming to section 10AA, relevant extract of this section, as applicable to A.Y. 2013-14 (assessment year involved in assessee's case), is reproduced here under: "10AA. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in computing the total income of an assessee, being an entrepreneur as referred to in clause(j) of section 2 of the Special

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

vii) Now coming to section 10AA, relevant extract of this section, as applicable to A.Y. 2013-14 (assessment year involved in assessee's case), is reproduced here under: "10AA. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in computing the total income of an assessee, being an entrepreneur as referred to in clause(j) of section 2 of the Special

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

vii) Now coming to section 10AA, relevant extract of this section, as applicable to A.Y. 2013-14 (assessment year involved in assessee's case), is reproduced here under:- "10AA. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in computing the total income of an assessee, being an entrepreneur as referred to in clause(j) of section 2 of the Special

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

36 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\n() Under 144C(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 DRP IS ONLY REQUIRED TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE AO. The relevant sub-section is reproduced below\n(5) The Dispute. Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub-section (2), issue such directions, as it thinks

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. PADMAVATHI V., HOSPET

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

condone the said delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 30/09/2012 u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, she filed her revised return on 19/02/2013. The AO found that the assessee had claimed deduction under Chapter VIA and has also reported

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(LTU), BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS(INDIA) PVT. LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

36(1)(vii) of the Act as bad debts written of which was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. The deduction was also examined under section 37(1) of the Act and was rejected by the Revenue authorities. The amount in question cannot be regarded as a capital expenditure because the capital asset never reached