M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation was also denied on the same reasoning as held u/s. 11(1)(a). iii. Expenditure in the nature of Capital Expenditure – Rs.8,21,61,215. ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 9 of 183 iv. Disallowance of donations u/s 37 – Rs.63,25,000. v. Undisclosed cash receipts – Rs.87,72,00,000 : In this year also, as held in the previous

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)

131.\n17.4.\nThe Learned AO was not justified in making the\nad-hoc addition of Rs.23,60,587/-, without any evidence\nand on an erroneous presumption that there was inflation\nof Rs.25 for every lakh beedies sold by the Appellant in the\nimpugned FY 2019-20 merely based on a statement of\nunder Section 133A of one third party labelling

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation is automatic and relied on various judgements. In our opinion, it is the duty of the assessee to furnish the necessary details as called for by the authorities, so as to claim M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 23 of 29 the deduction. In the absence of such details, the lower authorities have no other option to deny

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

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

131.\n17.4.\nThe Learned AO was not justified in making the\nad-hoc addition of Rs.23,60,587/-, without any evidence\nand on an erroneous presumption that there was inflation\nof Rs.25 for every lakh beedies sold by the Appellant in the\nimpugned FY 2019-20 merely based on a statement of\nunder Section 133A of one third party labelling

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

131.\n\n17.4.\nThe Learned AO was not justified in making the\nad-hoc addition of Rs.23,60,587/-, without any evidence\nand on an erroneous presumption that there was inflation\nof Rs.25 for every lakh beedies sold by the Appellant in the\nimpugned FY 2019-20 merely based on a statement of\nunder Section 133A of one third party

M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

depreciation was also claimed on this asset. This fact was not disputed by the assessee. The Shah Bazar Site was not at all shown in the balance sheet. All the constructions under consideration, including the Fun Junction Multiplex which was classified as fixed asset in the balance sheet of the assessee, were built on this site only. There is nothing

M/S. MANGALORE ROUND TABLE TRUST,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

depreciation was also claimed on this asset. This fact was not disputed by the assessee. The Shah Bazar Site was not at all shown in the balance sheet. All the constructions under consideration, including the Fun Junction Multiplex which was classified as fixed asset in the balance sheet of the assessee, were built on this site only. There is nothing

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(4), BENGALURU

depreciation. These expenses were booked in the accounts of Bren\nCorporation, a real estate concern. The learned DR pointed out that this\nadmission was again confirmed by the assessee in a later statement\nrecorded under section 131

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

depreciation. These expenses were booked in the accounts of Bren\nCorporation, a real estate concern. The learned DR pointed out that this\nadmission was again confirmed by the assessee in a later statement\nrecorded under section 131