EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 32 applies to cases of business acquisition through slump sale or business transfer agreement. 26.2 The proviso mandates that depreciation allowable to the successor cannot exceed the depreciation that would have been ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 22

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-11(2), BANGALORE

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

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 of adjudication

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

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 of adjudication

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

22. The Appellant also craves for leave to claim an amount of Rs.13,87,00,000 as revenue expenditure paid towards the right to supply spare parts to customers of IR. Notwithstanding this argument, in case this amount is considered as a payment towards acquiring a capital asset, then the AO ought to allow depreciation on the same. 23. Without

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

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

depreciation from book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The assessee, while calculating tax liability under section 115JB of the Act, had claimed set off of brought forward loss of Rs.36,33,40,000/- from the declared net profit of Rs.83,62,22

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

depreciation from book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The assessee, while calculating tax liability under section 115JB of the Act, had claimed set off of brought forward loss of Rs.36,33,40,000/- from the declared net profit of Rs.83,62,22