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

220 ITR (Statute) 107 with the submission that the Legislature intended to exclude it from the purview of MAT provisions under sec. 115JA of the Act (which were para materia to sec. 115JB of the Act) Companies engaged, inter alia, in the power sector which were governed by a Special Statute, which also regulates the manner in which accounts

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

220 ITR (Statute) 107 with the submission that the Legislature intended to exclude it from the purview of MAT provisions under sec. 115JA of the Act (which were para materia to sec. 115JB of the Act) Companies engaged, inter alia, in the power sector which were governed by a Special Statute, which also regulates the manner in which accounts

M/S. REGIONAL OILSEEDS GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,CHITRADURGA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue\nstands dismissed

depreciation and claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.\nLater, a revised return was filed declaring a gross total income of Rs. 4,37,00,195/- and the total\nincome of Rs. 1,61,03,690/- after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act.\nPage 4 of 23\nITA Nos. 1354 & 1355/Bang/2016\n3.\nOn December

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

220/-. In respect of the A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee had claimed a lesser amount as loss whereas in respect of the A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee had shown a wrong figure as losses when there is no actual loss incurred during that year but only income was available for set off during that year. We have also perused

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

depreciable assets sold; and (iii) value assigned to the other assets sold. The Tribunal dealt with the mode of computation of profits/gains arising on transfer of other assets. In para-100 of its order the Tribunal clearly expressed its opinion that the profits or gains arising on transfer of other assets (which comprises only of the asset “Technical Know

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

2), as increased by various items specified in Clauses (a) to (i) provided therein. Clause (c) thereof reads as thus: \"(c) The amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities;\"\nTherefore as per the provisions, if an amount is specified for provision which is for meeting with the liabilities not ascertained such provision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 139(1) on 30.06.2006.\nii.\nThe order of amalgamation was dated 11.05.2007 - but made effective from\n01.04.2006. It contained a condition\nClause 220-whereby MRPL's liabilities\ndevolved on MIPL.\niii.\nThe original return of\nincome was not revised even though the assessment proceedings were pending.\nThe last date for filing the revised return was 31.03.2008, after the amalgamation

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 37 of the Act Additional depreciation on pellets and cartons 49,25,796 Commission paid to Mr Vijay Mallya 2,04,44,000 Foreign remittance for labels 41,34,952 Foreign remittance for business promotion 5,15,843 Reimbursement of expat salary 43,52,220

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

220 ITR 258 and the assessee also relied on Notification No.47/2016 dated 17.6.2016. He further submitted that the recipient has filed return of income including this income, therefore by virtue of section 40(a)(ia) no disallowance can be made. 27. The ld.AO disallowed the entire amount u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee has not deducted

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

220 ITR 258 and the assessee also relied on Notification No.47/2016 dated 17.6.2016. He further submitted that the recipient has filed return of income including this income, therefore by virtue of section 40(a)(ia) no disallowance can be made. 27. The ld.AO disallowed the entire amount u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee has not deducted

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 is one. PRAYER Based on the above submissions we feel aggrieved by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal Order and are praying your good selves to consider the Facts of Law and decide the case on its merit. The Appellant prays that the Addition of Rs 67,77,835/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Eight Hundred

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

220/- admitted by appellant, rejecting the appellant's contention that the offer is Gross receipt and not net income. 7. The ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the repayment of loan to Mr. Sunil Patil during the year 2007-08 as available to set off against the income assessed under unexplained investment for the same reasons for deleting

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

depreciation on goodwill is not allowable. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed. 37. The next issue for adjudication is disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A of the Act on the following grounds:- Grounds relating to disallowance of expenses under section 14A: 4.1 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in disallowing expenses of INR 70,66,372 in relation

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

depreciation at the rate of 25% amounting to Rs.18,95,02,966/-, and made addition of Rs.56,85,08,898/-. 12.4. The Ld.AR submitted that, Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the AY 2006-07 IT(TP)A No 799/B/2015 decision dated 10.11.2017, held that, the brand building expenses is in the course

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

220/- for the\nAY 2020-21. Likewise, the AO completed the assessment for AY 2021-22\nvide order dated 28th November 2023 assessing the total income at\nRs.138,43,73,474/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,95,140/-.\n\n6. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A), raising various grounds of appeal challenging

M/S. LTIMINDTREE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO M/S. MINDTREE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3),, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 28(iv) as held in CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 1 (SC). 5. Without prejudice to the above, Lower Authorities having disallowed depreciation and made addition in respect of liability written off ought to have computed the deduction 10A of the IT Act by taking revised profits. For the above Grounds and for such other

M/S. MINDTREE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

depreciation on goodwill, disallowing deduction u/s. 10AA and disallowing club expenses. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), LTU, who partly allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. In the meanwhile, vide notice dated 11.5.2015, the AO sought to rectify the book profits by adding Rs.50,22,576 towards provision for bad debts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. MINDTREE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

depreciation on goodwill, disallowing deduction u/s. 10AA and disallowing club expenses. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), LTU, who partly allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. In the meanwhile, vide notice dated 11.5.2015, the AO sought to rectify the book profits by adding Rs.50,22,576 towards provision for bad debts

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

220/- for the\nAY 2020-21. Likewise, the AO completed the assessment for AY 2021-22\nvide order dated 28th November 2023 assessing the total income at\nRs.138,43,73,474/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,95,140/-.\n6. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A), raising various grounds of appeal challenging the validity