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

251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the case to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be exercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act. 18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

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

251(1)(a)\nof the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of\nappeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the\ncase to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be\nexercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act.\n18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

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

251(1)(a)\nof the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of\nappeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the\ncase to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be\nexercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act.\n18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

M/S. SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

section 10 is an activity capable of producing a profit which can be taxed. Payment of outstanding liabilities was not an activity which could ever produce such a result. It could not be said, therefore, that because liabilities of a closed business were outstanding, it had to be held that either the business was continuing or that an intention

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

251(1)(a) of the Act calling upon the assessee to show cause why the addition of Rs.1.25 Crores should not be made as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act, instead of deemed dividend under Section2(22)(e) of the Act. 3.4.3 After rejecting the technical objections raised by the assessee questioning his power to invoke the provisions

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

depreciation relating to both domestic unit and SEZ Unit. 7.1.2 At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that these ground Nos.5 to 11 are not being pressed, as the assessee has got relief on this issue in view of the Assessing Officer’s order under Section 154 of the Act dt.30.1.2018 rectifying the order of assessment

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation on goodwill. The CIT(A) was of the view that since the matter ITA No.705 & 672/Bang/2014 Page 7 of 9 was being pursued before the AO wherein the factual basis of the claim will be examined, the assessee’s grievance will be adequately redressed. Even on that basis, the CIT(A) refused to admit the additional ground. 16. Aggrieved

M/S VECTRA INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

251-to 55 of paper book containing schedule depreciation schedule forming part of tax audit report for assessment year 2008-09 to 2011-12, he submitted that no sale of such assets have taken place. 4.3 Ld.AR in written submission filed on 11/07/19 after hearing was concluded submits that, in preceding years assessing officer disallowed claim of depreciation, without appreciating

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

section 32(1)(iia) of the I.T. Act and additional depreciation claimed has been allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Aspin Wall & Co., V. CIT (2001) 251

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

section 32(1)(iia) of the I.T. Act and additional depreciation claimed has been allowed. The Supreme Court in the case of Aspin Wall & Co., V. CIT (2001) 251

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on this is to be allowed. These grounds of assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.” 8.2 In view of the above, taking a consistent view, this issue is remitted to the file of AO/TPO for fresh consideration on similar directions in both these assessment years. 9. Next ground Nos.39 to 48 in assessment year

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on this is to be allowed. These grounds of assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.” 8.2 In view of the above, taking a consistent view, this issue is remitted to the file of AO/TPO for fresh consideration on similar directions in both these assessment years. 9. Next ground Nos.39 to 48 in assessment year

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

251 (Bangalore – Trib.) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that the matter need not be restored to the files of the AO without any allegations of the AO or DRP that assessee has not satisfied any conditions specified under section 80G of the Act. Lastly, it was contended that the donation receipts

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

251 and settled principle that the duty of\nthe Appellate Authority is to remove the defects or\nirregularities that occur in the course of the\nassessment proceeding.\n13. As regards addition of Rs.1,55,45,376/- on\naccount purchase of tendu leaves;\n13. 1. The impugned addition of Rs. Rs.1,55,45,376/-\ntowards account purchase of tendu leaves

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri A.K Garodiashri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.55//Bang/2015 (Asst. Year 2009-10) M/S Samsung R&D Institute India Bangalore Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. . Appellant Aaics 6290F. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru. . Respondent It(Tp)A No.60//Bang/2015 (Asst. Year 2009-10)

depreciation on the goodwill therefore this issue should be decided in favour of the revenue in view of the law laid down by Goetze (India) Ltd.. [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC) 11. We have gone through the order passed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Pentasoft

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR KAMALNGA ENERGY LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

depreciation and not allowable as deduction under section 37 while computing the income under the head income from business. 2. The Appellant has incurred the expenses of Rs.8,66,882/- for the purpose of business. In the event the expenses are not allowed as deduction under section 37 while computing the income under the head income from the business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR KAMALNGA ENERGY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

depreciation and not allowable as deduction under section 37 while computing the income under the head income from business. 2. The Appellant has incurred the expenses of Rs.8,66,882/- for the purpose of business. In the event the expenses are not allowed as deduction under section 37 while computing the income under the head income from the business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR KAMALANGA ENERGY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee and all three appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

depreciation and not allowable as deduction under section 37 while computing the income under the head income from business. 2. The Appellant has incurred the expenses of Rs.8,66,882/- for the purpose of business. In the event the expenses are not allowed as deduction under section 37 while computing the income under the head income from the business