DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

131(1) of the Act dated 09.04.2014 was also issued to the assessee seeking the assessee to 4 personally appear on 24.04.2014 but the assessee did not appear and again notice under Section 142(1) was issued to the assessee giving last opportunity for substantiating his case, but the assessee did not appear. Accordingly the AO completed the assessment under

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

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

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

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] wherein the assessee has stated that she was not owner nor operating any bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva and therefore the transaction did not relate to him. However, addition was made in these assessment years towards the transactions in HSBC Bank, Geneva. Against this, the assessee carried the matter before

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] wherein the assessee has stated that she was not owner nor operating any bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva and therefore the transaction did not relate to him. However, addition was made in these assessment years towards the transactions in HSBC Bank, Geneva. Against this, the assessee carried the matter before

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

depreciation for each of the relevant other free trade zone which the Central assessment year. Government may, by notification in the (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub- Official Gazette, specify for the purposes of section (10) of section 80-IA shall, so far as this section; may be, apply in relation to the undertaking [(ii) relevant assessment

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

131 DTR 332 (Pat)\nvi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom) &\nRahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All)\nvii CIT V. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 214 Taxman 38 (Guj) (viii) CIT V.\nLiving Media India Ltd (2013) 359 ITR 106 (Del)\n8.4 As stated an order U/s.143(3

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

3) or 144 had been made before. • Indivest Pte. Ltd., Singapore v. Additional Director of Income- tax-3(1), Mumbai [2012] 206 TAXMAN 351 (BOM.) • Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Guj.) 2012-TIOL-667- HC-AHM-IT 40. It is to be noted that the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated in section 147 should be that of the Assessing Officer

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

131 DTR 332 (Pat)\nvi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom) &\nRahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All)\nvii CIT V. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 214 Taxman 38 (Guj) (viii) CIT V.\nLiving Media India Ltd (2013) 359 ITR 106 (Del)\n8.4 As stated an order U/s.143(3

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

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

depreciation, whereas the AO has considered it as 9.35%. At the last of argument on this issue, considering to the entire facts he was agreed after taking oral consent from the proprietor of the business that he was agreed for 5% on the turnover declared in the Page 20 of 34 audit report for the impugned assessment year on 07/09/2022

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

131 DTR 332 (Pat)\nvi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom) &\nRahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All)\nPage 11 of 26\nvii CIT V. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 214 Taxman 38 (Guj) (viii) CIT V.\nLiving Media India Ltd (2013) 359 ITR 106 (Del)\n8.4 As stated an order U/s.143(3

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

131 DTR 332 (Pat)\nvi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom) &\nRahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All)\nvii CIT V. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 214 Taxman 38 (Guj) (viii) CIT V.\nLiving Media India Ltd (2013) 359 ITR 106 (Del)\n8.4 As stated an order U/s.143(3

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

131 DTR 332 (Pat)\nvi CIT V. Double Dot Finance Ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 47 (Mag)(Bom) &\nRahul Prakash V. ITO (2013) 217 Taxman 100 (All)\nvii CIT V. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2013) 214 Taxman 38 (Guj) (viii) CIT V.\nLiving Media India Ltd (2013) 359 ITR 106 (Del)\n8.4 As stated an order U/s.143(3