THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148

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, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148

SAIKAT CHINMAY BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nSir/Madam/M/s.\n1. I have the following information in your case or in the case of the person in\nrespect of which you are assessable under the Income tax Act, 1961 (here in\nalter referred to as \"the Act\") for Assessment Year 2017-18\n• information in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

148 to 153, assess or\nreassess23 such 23 income 23 and also any other income chargeable to tax\nwhich has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently\nin the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss\nor the depreciation

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU 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

148 to 153, assess or\nreassess23 such 23 income 23 and also any other income chargeable to tax\nwhich has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently\nin the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss\nor the depreciation

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, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148

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

In the result the ITA No

148 to 153, assess or\nreassess23 such 23 income 23 and also any other income chargeable to tax\nwhich has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently\nin the course of the proceedings 23 under this section, or recompute the loss\nor the depreciation

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, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148

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, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148

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, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148

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

148", "Section 153A", "Section 143(3)", "Section 154", "Section 234B", "Section 234D", "Section 32(1)(iia)", "Section 2(29A)", "Section 147"], "issues": "Whether disallowance under Section 14A is valid without exempt income, whether additional depreciation

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

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

148 would be the very\nfoundation of the issuance of notice and if it is false or baseless, then everything\ngoes and the structure erected on such foundation would crumble.\nIt is true that if the foundation goes, then the structure cannot remain. Meaning\nthereby, if notice has no sufficient reason or is invalid, no proceedings can be\ninitiated

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

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

depreciation.", "result": "Allowed/Dismissed", "sections": ["14A", "32(1)(iia)", "143(3)", "147", "148", "153A", "234B", "234D"], "issues": "Whether disallowance under Section

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

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) is allowable for the process of converting raw coffee beans into liquid coffee, as it constitutes manufacturing. The reassessment proceedings under Section 153A were dismissed if no incriminating material was found and the assessment was already concluded.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "14A", "Rule 8D", "143(3)", "147", "153A", "148

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

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

depreciation and the scope of section 153A in cases of search.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "8D", "132", "148", "153A", "143(3)", "154", "234B

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

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

148 would be the very\nfoundation of the issuance of notice and if it is false or baseless, then everything\ngoes and the structure erected on such foundation would crumble.\nIt is true that if the foundation goes, then the structure cannot remain. Meaning\nthereby, if notice has no sufficient reason or is invalid, no proceedings can be\ninitiated

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

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

148 would be the very\nfoundation of the issuance of notice and if it is false or baseless, then everything\ngoes and the structure erected on such foundation would crumble.\nIt is true that if the foundation goes, then the structure cannot remain. Meaning\nthereby, if notice has no sufficient reason or is invalid, no proceedings can be\ninitiated

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

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

148 would be the very\nfoundation of the issuance of notice and if it is false or baseless, then everything\ngoes and the structure erected on such foundation would crumble.\nIt is true that if the foundation goes, then the structure cannot remain. Meaning\nthereby, if notice has no sufficient reason or is invalid, no proceedings can be\ninitiated