MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2[22][e] of the Act. 2.4 Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below have erred in taxing the aggregate of the debit balance that too as erroneously depicted by the A.O. in the assessment order as against the actual account copy as per the books of the company and filed with the authorities below [see paper book

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2[22][e] of the Act. 2.4 Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below have erred in taxing the aggregate of the debit balance that too as erroneously depicted by the A.O. in the assessment order as against the actual account copy as per the books of the company and filed with the authorities below [see paper book

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2[22][e] of the Act. 2.4 Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below have erred in taxing the aggregate of the debit balance that too as erroneously depicted by the A.O. in the assessment order as against the actual account copy as per the books of the company and filed with the authorities below [see paper book

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2[22][e] of the Act. 2.4 Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below have erred in taxing the aggregate of the debit balance that too as erroneously depicted by the A.O. in the assessment order as against the actual account copy as per the books of the company and filed with the authorities below [see paper book

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2[22][e] of the Act. 2.4 Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below have erred in taxing the aggregate of the debit balance that too as erroneously depicted by the A.O. in the assessment order as against the actual account copy as per the books of the company and filed with the authorities below [see paper book

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 2[22][e] of the Act. 2.4 Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below have erred in taxing the aggregate of the debit balance that too as erroneously depicted by the A.O. in the assessment order as against the actual account copy as per the books of the company and filed with the authorities below [see paper book

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)

e-return. The manual copy of the return filed is filed. As per the AIR and CIB information base, it is also seen that the assessee has deposited a total cash of Rs.1,12,02,680 in the Savings Bank Accounts maintained by him. 3 As per the AIR information, the assessee has also received interest of Rs.1

MICROFINISH VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED,HUBLI vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A No.1449/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12

section IT(IT)A No. 1449/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 12 2(22)(e) could not have been invoked, among others, for the reason that:- (a) Said sum of Rs. 330 lacs was received by the Appellant Company as "Inter Corporate Deposit" (ICD) and not as "Advance or Loan"; (b) Appellant Company is not a Legal Registered Shareholder and Beneficial Shareholder

SURESH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,HUBLI vs. ACIT, HUBLI

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Suresh Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Akshay Chabbi Corner, Akshay Centre, Gokul Road, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No.Aaccs4691 N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1), Hubli. … Respondent

depreciation is set off. The legal contention that provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked as the assessee

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act which is extracted hereunder :- “ 3.16 The facts narrated above, it is apportionate to examine the merit of the issue as below :- i) The appellant furnished a copy of balance sheet as on 31.3.2009 and from it statement of account for the financial year 2008-09 disclosed as under :- BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION BALANCE SHEET

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

2(22)(e). (vii) Grounds 13 to 15 – Alternate grounds raised without prejudice to the above grounds. 7. The assessee raised 15 grounds and several sub-grounds on issues listed above and presented arguments with regard to the same during the course of hearing. Though we heard the rival submissions with regard to all the grounds, for the purpose

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

2(22)(e). (vii) Grounds 13 to 15 – Alternate grounds raised without prejudice to the above grounds. 7. The assessee raised 15 grounds and several sub-grounds on issues listed above and presented arguments with regard to the same during the course of hearing. Though we heard the rival submissions with regard to all the grounds, for the purpose

GIRISH APPA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. George

Depreciation has to be removed to arrive at the actual "Revenue Element". It is our humble opinion that it is on this Revenue Element that we should apply the provisions of Section 2(22) (e

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

22 of 48 (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001 and provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 to the extent the same are not inconsistent with the Electricity Act/DERC Regulation. It was submitted in other words that in case of any variation/conflict in the aforesaid provisions, the assessee is bound to mandatorily follow/adopt the specific

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

e) any other company governed by any special Act for the time being in force, except in so far as the said provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of such special Act; and (f) such body corporate, incorporated by any Act for the time being in force, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, subject

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

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

E) [2019] 104 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.), it was held as follows: 8. ………… Undoubtedly the dominant and prime object is required to be seen. ……….. 9. The facts of the present case is quite similar to the facts of the case titled as India Trade Promotion Orgaization (supra). Therefore finding of the said cases is quite applicable to the facts