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

153\ntaxmann.com 591, has held that where a prohibitory order under section\n132(3) of the Act is not revoked within one month as per the CBDT’s\ndirective, any panchanama drawn thereafter loses its legal validity and\ncannot be considered for computing limitation under section 153B of the\nAct. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in said case reads

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

153\ntaxmann.com 591, has held that where a prohibitory order under section\n132(3) of the Act is not revoked within one month as per the CBDT’s\ndirective, any panchanama drawn thereafter loses its legal validity and\ncannot be considered for computing limitation under section 153B of the\nAct. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in said case reads

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

3 to section 43(1) of the Act could be invoked only if the Assessing Officer was of the view that fair market value of assets had been inflated to claim excess depreciation; where fair market value of asset had been certified by registered valuer and the assessing officer had not appointed his own valuer for valuation of disputed assets

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)

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

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SWISS RESHARED SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (Previously Known As Swiss Re The Deputy Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 2Nd To 5Th Floor, Fairwinds Income Tax, Building, Embassy Golf Links Circle – 6(1)(2), Business Park, Challaghatta Vs. Bangalore. Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs8786L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 438/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Shri Nageswar Rao, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Revenue By Meena, Cit Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 -12-2021 Order Per Bench Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee 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 Grounds Of Appeal.

depreciation charged by the Appellant vis-à-vis the comparables; 10. The learned AO/TPO have erred in law and in facts, by not granting adjustments to account for differences in the marketing expenditure incurred by the Appellant vis-à- vis the comparables; 11.The learned AO/TPO erred, in law and in facts, by not making suitable adjustments on account of differences

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

depreciation benefit available to the assessee though the cost of land increases and he may sell the land. Therefore R & R expenditure debited in the P & L Account was treated as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee and addition was made in the Assessment Order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act completed

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

depreciation benefit available to the assessee though the cost of land increases and he may sell the land. Therefore R & R expenditure debited in the P & L Account was treated as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee and addition was made in the Assessment Order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act completed

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

depreciation benefit available to the assessee though the cost of land increases and he may sell the land. Therefore R & R expenditure debited in the P & L Account was treated as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee and addition was made in the Assessment Order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act completed

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

depreciation benefit available to the assessee though the cost of land increases and he may sell the land. Therefore R & R expenditure debited in the P & L Account was treated as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee and addition was made in the Assessment Order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act completed

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

153 of the Act.\nThe assessee had also objected to the disallowance of exemption made u/s.\n11 of the Act even though the facts are similar and no business activities are\ncarried on by the assessee. The assessee had also challenged the additions\nin respect of the Slum Improvement Cess and Labour Welfare Fund u/s.\n43B

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

153 of the Act.\nThe assessee had also objected to the disallowance of exemption made u/s.\n11 of the Act even though the facts are similar and no business activities are\ncarried on by the assessee. The assessee had also challenged the additions\nin respect of the Slum Improvement Cess and Labour Welfare Fund u/s.\n43B

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

153, the assessee has declared a net income of Rs.4,20,460 which is less than the income declared in the original return. Therefore, by considering the income declared by the assessee in the original return filed under Section 139 was consciously taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer and which does not mean that the notice issued under Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

153, assess or reassess such income….” , Hence the basic requirement for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 is that the AO should have “reason to believe that nay income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment”. 14. The ld. AR submitted that a perusal of the reasons recorded do not state what is the amount of income chargeable to tax that as escaped