M/S WYZMINDZ SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

145A of the Act have been substituted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 01.04.1999, the section provided the provision relatable to the valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory, for the purpose of determining the income chargeable under the head profits

TRITON VALVES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on goodwill is no longer a matter of debate. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee should not be denied benefit which it is entitled to in law purely on technicalities. We are also satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals has occasioned on account of reasonable cause. In this regard, we find that

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)

145A and ICDS 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

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

145A of the Act have been substituted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 01.04.1999, the section provided the provision relatable to the valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory, for the purpose of determining the income chargeable under the head profits

MR.NANJUNDA RENUKA ARADHYA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

145A of the Act have been substituted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 01.04.1999, the section provided the provision relatable to the valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory, for the purpose of determining the income chargeable under the head profits

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

145A of the Act have been substituted by the Finance 12 (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 01.04.1999, the section provided the provision relatable to the valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory, for the purpose of determining the income chargeable under the head profits

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

145A of the Act have been substituted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 01.04.1999, the section provided the provision relatable to the valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory, for the purpose of determining the income chargeable under the head profits

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

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original return of income

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

145A and ICDS II\nwere equally applicable for the said impugned years.\n\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

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

145A of the Act introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 9. The appellant craves to leave to add/alter/amend/and/or delete any of the grounds on or before the hearing of appeal. 29. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue arise under identical facts and circumstances as it prevailed in AY 2002-03 as was submitted by the parties before us. The reasons given

M/S. ABB LIMITED(FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

145A of the Act introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 9. The appellant craves to leave to add/alter/amend/and/or delete any of the grounds on or before the hearing of appeal. 29. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue arise under identical facts and circumstances as it prevailed in AY 2002-03 as was submitted by the parties before us. The reasons given

M/S. ABB LIMITED(FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

145A of the Act introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 9. The appellant craves to leave to add/alter/amend/and/or delete any of the grounds on or before the hearing of appeal. 29. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue arise under identical facts and circumstances as it prevailed in AY 2002-03 as was submitted by the parties before us. The reasons given

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

145A of the Act introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 9. The appellant craves to leave to add/alter/amend/and/or delete any of the grounds on or before the hearing of appeal. 29. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue arise under identical facts and circumstances as it prevailed in AY 2002-03 as was submitted by the parties before us. The reasons given

M/S. CORPORATION BANK,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S & Ita No.1680/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2014-15

depreciation on ATM should be allowed at the high rate of 60%. The assessee’s appeal on this ground is allowed. ITA No.1109/Bang/2019, 1680/Bang/2018, 164/Pnj/2019 & 235/Pan/2018 Page 17 of 44 Disallowance of CANVAT Credit on capital goods (Ground No. 5) 15. The assessee has availed CENVAT credit of Service Tax and Excise Duty paid on the capital goods. The details

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, BELLARY vs. M/S AURO MINERALS , HOSPET

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and that of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

depreciation. The Assessee had valued closing stock basaed on direct costi.e. Rs. 184/- per ton however the AO for the reasons that Assessee did not furnish details to justify segregation of expenses as direct and indirect cost, chose to value the closing stock during the year at total cost including direct and indirect costs. He thus held the value

M/S AURO MINERALS ,HOSPET vs. JOINT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX BELLARY RANGE , BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and that of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

depreciation. The Assessee had valued closing stock basaed on direct costi.e. Rs. 184/- per ton however the AO for the reasons that Assessee did not furnish details to justify segregation of expenses as direct and indirect cost, chose to value the closing stock during the year at total cost including direct and indirect costs. He thus held the value

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation is claimed. Thus this company has been characterized itself as engaged in providing outsourced product development services to independent software vendors and enterprises. It has been characterised to having earned significant portion of its revenues from export of software services and products. This function, the assets owned by this company and the risk assumed are not comparable with that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. THERMO KING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member Assessmentyear:2008-09

145A of the Act to contend that valuation of inventory needs to be done as per the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. The Appellant being a Company, is mandated to follow AS 2 issued by the ICAI for valuation of inventories. AS 2 provides for valuing the inventory at cost or net realizable value whichever is lower