M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

139, whichever is later : Provided that in case the assessment year in which the income was first assessable is the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 but before the 1st day of April, 2010, the provisions of clause (a) shall have effect as if for the words "two years", the words "twenty-one months

M/S. REGIONAL OILSEEDS GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,CHITRADURGA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue\nstands dismissed

depreciation and claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.\nLater, a revised return was filed declaring a gross total income of Rs. 4,37,00,195/- and the total\nincome of Rs. 1,61,03,690/- after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act.\nPage 4 of 23\nITA Nos. 1354 & 1355/Bang/2016\n3.\nOn December

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)

139(1)\nand no notice under section\n139(2) was served upon\nhim. However, he filed\nreturns under section\n139(4). After a period of\nabout four years, he filed\nrevised\nreturns.\nThe\nAssessing Officer did not\ncomplete the assessments\nbefore the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the\n assessment years.\nThus, the facts of the case

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

139 of the Act and not to the proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the Act, since the learned Assessing Authority has considered the income returned in the original return. 6. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the adoption of income under head "POOJA" Rs.20,00,000/- as against Rs.3,85,376/- admitted by appellant, rejecting

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

4:00 AM, under mental and physical stress during the course of survey/search proceedings. It is settled law that statements made under such coercive circumstances are not voluntary in nature and hence cannot form the basis for additions, unless duly corroborated by independent material. Despite the alleged declarations, no such income or disallowances were offered in the returns filed

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

depreciation is in the nature of business expenditure. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to reduce expenses on communication, travel and other expenses incurred in foreign currency both from export turnover and as well as from total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

depreciation is in the nature of business expenditure. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to reduce expenses on communication, travel and other expenses incurred in foreign currency both from export turnover and as well as from total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction

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

139(1)\nand no notice under section\n139(2) was served upon\nhim. However, he filed\nreturns under section\n139(4). After a period of\nabout four years, he filed\nrevised\nreturns.\nThe\nAssessing Officer did not\ncomplete the assessments\nbefore the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the\n assessment years.\n\nThus, the facts

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

139(1)\nand no notice under section\n139(2) was served upon\nhim. However, he filed\nreturns under section\n139(4). After a period of\nabout four years, he filed\nrevised\nreturns.\nThe\nAssessing Officer did not\ncomplete the assessments\nbefore the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the\n assessment years.\nThus, the facts of the case

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

section 139(5) of the Act. In fact, probably the assessing authority was conscious that it is not a valid ground to reject the claim, he proceeded to consider the claim of the assessee on the merits and has rejected the claim on the merits also.” 9.10 In the light of the aforesaid reasoning and the judgment

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

section 139(5) of the Act. In fact, probably the assessing authority was conscious that it is not a valid ground to reject the claim, he proceeded to consider the claim of the assessee on the merits and has rejected the claim on the merits also.” 9.10 In the light of the aforesaid reasoning and the judgment

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

section 139(5) of the Act. In fact, probably the assessing authority was conscious that it is not a valid ground to reject the claim, he proceeded to consider the claim of the assessee on the merits and has rejected the claim on the merits also.” 9.10 In the light of the aforesaid reasoning and the judgment

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

section 139(5) of the Act. In fact, probably the assessing authority was conscious that it is not a valid ground to reject the claim, he proceeded to consider the claim of the assessee on the merits and has rejected the claim on the merits also.” 9.10 In the light of the aforesaid reasoning and the judgment

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)

4. The gist of this ground is that the Assessing Officer had issued notice under section 148(1) during the period when he could have issued notice under section 143(2) and as notice under section 143(2) was not issued till then i.e., (before the expiry of twelve months from the date of filing of the return) the notice

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment