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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

10 & 11 “The Parliament has thus consistently made the meaning of 'banking company' clear beyond doubt to mean 'a company engaged in banking, and not a co-operative society engaged in banking' and in Act No. 23 of 1965, while amending the BR Act, it did not change the definition in Section 5 (c) or even

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

10 & 11 “The Parliament has thus consistently made the meaning of 'banking company' clear beyond doubt to mean 'a company engaged in banking, and not a co-operative society engaged in banking' and in Act No. 23 of 1965, while amending the BR Act, it did not change the definition in Section 5 (c) or even

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2009-10

depreciation claim to the extent of Rs.5,82,576/-. However, the Assessee requested that as this mistake was apparent on the face of the record and was rectifiable by the O under section 154, the proceedings under section 263 should be dropped on this point. 2.2 As regards the aspect of incorrect allowance of deduction under section 80-IB(10

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

23 of 47 ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 6. The learned AO completed the assessment proceedings vide orders dated 30.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act for the A.Ys.2013-14 to 2017-18 and under section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2018-19. The only disputed addition is the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill

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

c) of the Income-tax Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return. The judgment in Dilip N. Shroff’s case (supra) has not considered the effect and relevance of section 276C of the Income-tax Act. Object behind enactment of section 271(1)(e) read with

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

10 of 26 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to properly 29. appreciate that the addition made in the impugned order of assessment passed by the learned assessing officer is not based on any incriminating material and further failed to appreciate that for making additions under the proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Actmoreso when the proceedings

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

10 of 26 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to properly 29. appreciate that the addition made in the impugned order of assessment passed by the learned assessing officer is not based on any incriminating material and further failed to appreciate that for making additions under the proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Actmoreso when the proceedings

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

10 of 26 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to properly 29. appreciate that the addition made in the impugned order of assessment passed by the learned assessing officer is not based on any incriminating material and further failed to appreciate that for making additions under the proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Actmoreso when the proceedings

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

10 of 26 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to properly 29. appreciate that the addition made in the impugned order of assessment passed by the learned assessing officer is not based on any incriminating material and further failed to appreciate that for making additions under the proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Actmoreso when the proceedings

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is untenable in law. iv. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

depreciation at the rate of 60%. 9.3. The learned ACIT and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in facts and in law in not taking into cognizance the submissions including judicial precedents made by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings of the subject AY 10. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings 10.1. The learned ACIT has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NOUS INFO SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaramani.T.A No.63/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Nous Info Systems P. Ltd, No.1, 1St Main, 1St Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 004 .. Respondent Pan : Aaacn4584B Assessee By : Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vijaykumar N, Addl. Cit Heard On : 14.09.2016 Pronounced On : 11 .11.2016 O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman:

23 rd March 2009 declaring total income of Rs.65,354,148/- after considering brought forward losses of Rs.12,378,310/- and after claiming deduction under section 10A at Rs.3,993,274/- , which was processed under section 143(1) vide intimation dated 26 March 2010 granting a refund of Rs.1,466,480/-. The assessee filed a rectification application under section

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

c) the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities; or d) the amount by way of provision for losses of subsidiary companies; e) or the amount or amounts of dividends paid or proposed ; or f) the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10 (other than

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

c) the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities; or d) the amount by way of provision for losses of subsidiary companies; e) or the amount or amounts of dividends paid or proposed ; or f) the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10 (other than