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

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

VIJAYA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

251 of the Act. Our ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 7 of 49 attention was drawn to Rule 11 and 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which provides as follows :- Rule-11 provides: "The appellant shall not, except by leave of the Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

251 of the Act. Our ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 7 of 49 attention was drawn to Rule 11 and 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which provides as follows :- Rule-11 provides: "The appellant shall not, except by leave of the Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum

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

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

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

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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)." (emphasis supplied) We are concerned with the provision of section 147 as amended with effect from 1st April 1989. In paragraph 4 of the said decision

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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)." (emphasis supplied) We are concerned with the provision of section 147 as amended with effect from 1st April 1989. In paragraph 4 of the said decision

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

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

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 should 24 Chemicals Works Co Ltd 177 ITR 377, IBM also be allowed in respect of software India Ltd 357 ITR 88 etc. expenses of earlier years held as CIT v Toyota Kirloskar Motor P Ltd [2012] 349 capital in nature. ITR 65 (Kar) dt. 23.3.2011 CIT v IBM India Ltd [2013] 357 ITR 88 dt. 10.4.2013 Infosys

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

251 including Rs. 52,10,92,957 on account of foreign tax credit in respect of taxes presently under dispute with Australian tax authorities (ATO)) in respect of income on which deduction under section 10AA has been claimed. 4.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that foreign tax credit in respect of income on which deduction under section

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

1) of the Act. Later on scrutiny notice under section 143(2) of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. On examination of the documents submitted, it was observed that during the course of search and seizure, statement of the assessee was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act in which the assessee has mentioned

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

1) of the Act. Later on scrutiny notice under section 143(2) of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. On examination of the documents submitted, it was observed that during the course of search and seizure, statement of the assessee was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act in which the assessee has mentioned

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

1) of the Act. Later on scrutiny notice under section 143(2) of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. On examination of the documents submitted, it was observed that during the course of search and seizure, statement of the assessee was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act in which the assessee has mentioned

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

1) of the Act. Later on scrutiny notice under section 143(2) of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. On examination of the documents submitted, it was observed that during the course of search and seizure, statement of the assessee was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act in which the assessee has mentioned

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

251 of the I.T. Act 1961 has been dealt with. The Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold as under : “In view of the above discussion, we are of the clear opinion that incases falling under section 144B of the Act, the quasi-judicial function of the Income-tax Officer as an assessing authority comes