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

143(1) of the Act:- • 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 66. In our opinion, the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated in section 147 should be that of the Assessing Officer. The AO has to apply

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

143(1) of the Act:- • 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 66. In our opinion, the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated in section 147 should be that of the Assessing Officer. The AO has to apply

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction under

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

143(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

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

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

143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act. Such an order cannot be construed as having been passed independently and on a stand-alone basis under section 144C(13) of the Act. The further contention of the Assessee is that the time limit for completion of assessment in terms of section 153(1) of the Act is ordinarily

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. c. The learned Assessing Officer failed to verify various aspects before issuing the notice under section 153A of the Act as the valid search under section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for a valid issue of notice under section 132 of the Act. d. The appellant itself himself liable

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. c. The learned Assessing Officer failed to verify various aspects before issuing the notice under section 153A of the Act as the valid search under section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for a valid issue of notice under section 132 of the Act. d. The appellant itself himself liable

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. c. The learned Assessing Officer failed to verify various aspects before issuing the notice under section 153A of the Act as the valid search under section 132 of the Act is sine qua non for a valid issue of notice under section 132 of the Act. d. The appellant itself himself liable

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

II Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. and other cases. (Supreme Court CIT Vs. Alom Extructions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)) ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 22` 4.5 Records clearly show that employees' contribution towards EPF and ESI has been paid and deposited to the fund concerned before filing

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

II Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. and other cases. (Supreme Court CIT Vs. Alom Extructions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)) ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 22` 4.5 Records clearly show that employees' contribution towards EPF and ESI has been paid and deposited to the fund concerned before filing

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

II Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. and other cases. (Supreme Court CIT Vs. Alom Extructions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)) ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 22` 4.5 Records clearly show that employees' contribution towards EPF and ESI has been paid and deposited to the fund concerned before filing

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

3) has to be quashed, thus ordered accordingly. The\nground raised by the Assessee is accordingly allowed\".\n14. In this appeal, we are required to examine whether any substantial\nquestion of law arises for our consideration.\n15. Having regard to the findings returned by the Tribunal, which are\nfindings of fact, in our view, no substantial question of law arises

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

ii) of the Act, the claim of depreciation is hit by the sixth proviso to section 32 of the Act due to the nature of succession involved in the present case. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s action in disallowing depreciation on intangible assets and dismissed the appeal on this ground. 29. Being aggrieved

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

ii) of the Act, the claim of depreciation is hit by the sixth proviso to section 32 of the Act due to the nature of succession involved in the present case. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s action in disallowing depreciation on intangible assets and dismissed the appeal on this ground. 29. Being aggrieved

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

ii) of the Act, the claim of depreciation is hit by the sixth proviso to section 32 of the Act due to the nature of succession involved in the present case. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s action in disallowing depreciation on intangible assets and dismissed the appeal on this ground. 29. Being aggrieved

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)

II\nwere equally applicable for the said impugned years.\n14. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO\nerred in making the impugned addition by presuming that\nreflection of Rs.20,59,84,960/- under “Any other item or\nitems of addition under section 28 to 44DA” of the revised\nreturn dated 09.02.2021 was towards undervaluation of\nstock whereas

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises