NEETA BHAMBHANI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Sir/Madam/M/s. 1. I have the following information in your case or in the case of the person in respect of which you are assessable under the Income tax Act, 1961 (here in alter referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Year 2017-18 • information in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Sir/Madam/M/s. 1. I have the following information in your case or in the case of the person in respect of which you are assessable under the Income tax Act, 1961 (here in alter referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Year 2017-18 • information in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated

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

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

1) dated 07/05/2024 and annexed\nherewith for reference,\n2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss\nor the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the\n Assessment Year 2017-18 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within a\nperiod of three months from the end of month in which this

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

depreciation allowance has been computed without disclosing reasons which led the assessing authority to hold such belief, in our opinion, does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to take action under sections 147 and 148 of the Act.” 48. In CIT Vs ICICI Bank Ltd 2012-TIOL-512-HC-MUM-IT, the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court held

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

depreciation allowance has been computed without disclosing reasons which led the assessing authority to hold such belief, in our opinion, does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to take action under sections 147 and 148 of the Act.” 48. In CIT Vs ICICI Bank Ltd 2012-TIOL-512-HC-MUM-IT, the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court held

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

depreciation allowance has been computed without disclosing reasons which led the assessing authority to hold such belief, in our opinion, does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to take action under sections 147 and 148 of the Act.” 53. In CIT Vs ICICI Bank Ltd 2012-TIOL-512-HC-MUM-IT, the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court held

THE ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. The Archdiocesan The Deputy Board Of Education, Commissioner Of Archbishop’S House, No. 75 Income Tax Vs. Millers Road, Benson Town, (Exemptions), Bangalore – 560 046. Circle – 1, Pan: Aabat5296P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

1 and 2 of the case law compilation filed by ld. DR of revenue. He also placed reliance on one more judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Tapan Kumar Datta Vs. CIT as reported in [2018] 92 taxmann.com 367 (SC), copy available on pages 3 to 10 of the case law compilation filed

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(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

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 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153, referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153, referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153, referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153, referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153, referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be,\nfor the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section\n143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no\naction shall