DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act in respect of disallowance of depreciation claimed as application amounting to Rs.7,53,66,656/- by stipulating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. MANIPAL HOSPITALS (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the Ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) Vs. M/S. Manipal Hospitals Room No. 307, 3Rdfloor. (Bangalore) Private Limited C.R. Building, Queens Road 98/2, The Annex Bengaluru – 560001 Ruso Bagh Karnataka Off. Hal Airport Road Bengaluru – 560017 Karnataka Pan: Aaccv9562D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By: Sri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Department Represented By: Smt Prajakta Thakur, Jcit Date Of Hearing:09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi: 1. Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Dcit – Central Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru Against The Appellate Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru (“The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 28.02.2025 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By Dcit – Central

depreciation. Thus, the penalty was levied because claim of expenditure as revenue expenditure was denied but was treated as capital

M/S MANN & HUMMEL FILTER PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

penalty by the AO are as follows. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of dealing in all types of automotive and industrial filters. In the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation

MASTHI GOWDA P,MANDYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

depreciation in the assessment and also the deletion of penalty by the AO are erroneous to the interest of the revenue

MANJUNATHA,K R PET vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

depreciation in the assessment and also the deletion of penalty by the AO are erroneous to the interest of the revenue

ASIAN EARTH MOVERS,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation. 7. The learned AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. 8. The learned AO erred

DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE , KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated\nabove

depreciation was also allowed. Grounds related to interest and penalty proceedings were dismissed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144B

K R MAHESHA,MADDUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2016-17

depreciation and interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. The same has resulted in an addition of Rs.22,72,313/- to the total income declared by the assessee. K.R. Mahesha, Maddur Taluk Page 3 of 10 5. Since the assessee did not maintain books of accounts as required under provisions of section 44AA of the Act, the A.O. also initiated penalty

SIDDAPPA B T,MANDYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act. 6. The Ld. PCIT examined the assessment record and took the view that the action of the A.O. in granting depreciation

R GOVINDE GOWDA,MANDYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act. 6. The Ld. PCIT examined the assessment record and took the view that the action of the A.O. in granting depreciation

BHARATHI EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE

Accordingly the appeal of assessee stands allowed on ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation claimed on assets which was claimed as application by assessee in earlier years. The Ld.AO determined taxable income of assessee as ‘nil’ as the total revenue and capital expenditure applied for charitable purposes exceeded the amount considered as surplus by him. The Ld.AO initiated penalty

M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 03/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abb Global Industries & Services Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abb The Deputy Global Industries & Commissioner Of Services Ltd.) Income Tax, 21St Floor, Wtc, Circle – 1(1)(1), Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore. Vs. Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 055. Pan: Aadca3217B Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Here Under Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. Assessment Bad In Law At The Outset, Abb Global Industries & Services Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated 30Th October 2019

depreciation on the software expenses were duly given in the earlier assessment years 3.3 Initiation of Penalty Proceedings The Learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation as well as deduction under section 24 and made addition to its income. The AO also imposed penalty under

BHARATH BEEDI WORKS PVT. LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

Penalty on delay in payment of entry tax The assessee has not pressed the above ground. Ground No. 6 — Depreciation

M/S. SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

depreciation as per Companies Act on Motor Car of Rs.44,70,008 and legal and consultancy fees, professional fees, penalty

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

depreciation and business loss relating to the asst. yr. 2001-02 onwards. The amendment indicates the legislative intention of providing the benefit of carry forward of depreciation and business loss relating to any year of the tax holiday period to be set off against income of any year post tax holiday. This is 54 IT(TP)A No.1599/Bang/2012 supported

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(LTU), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2007-08

depreciation on the balance additions for which invoices could not be furnished by the appellant. 4. Disallowance of expenditure in the nature of penalty

ALTRAN TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

penalty proceedings under the Act. Corporation taxation matters 20. Ld. AO/ DRP have erred, in law and in facts, by not granting allowance of tax depreciation