WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation of Rs. 64,40,765/- while computing the total income of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The learned authorities below are not justified in law in considering a sum of Rs. 92,795/- being the excess amount while considering the disallowance as per computation in the computation of income under normal provisions

MALLIKARJUN VIRUPAXAPPA YARASI,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

section 263 of the Act. 3.2 In view of the above, Ld. A.R. submitted that there was no lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry on the issue raised in the notice at the time of assessment and the original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is not prejudicial to interest of the revenue. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BELLARY vs. M/S. SOUTH WEST MINING LIMITED, BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

depreciation is admissible under s. 32. 52. The amortisation of the qualifying expenditure will be allowed in equal instalments over a 10-year period against the profits arising from `ITA No.457/Bang/2023 & CO No.4/Bang/2023 M/s. South West Mining Limited, Bellary Page 36 of 42 the commercial exploitation of any mine or other natural deposit of any of the specified minerals

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

section 263 was considered impermissible. In the present case, on the contrary, the assessment records do not disclose that any enquiry whatsoever was conducted on the two disputed issues in the year under consideration. Mere availability of actuarial reports, tax-audit particulars or depreciation

OM SAI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,GADAG vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

depreciation on intangible assets and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while passing the order under section 263 of the Act has held

THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

263 was initiated against the original assessment order dated 08.12.2016, wherein the scope was wide for the Ld.PCIT to rake up the issue of lack of verification as regards to the account held by the assessee in Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Page 14 of 24 4.3. Regarding the argument of the Ld.DR to apply Explanation 3 to section

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGLURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brocade Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd., Floor 3, B & C Wing & The Principal Floor 8, D Wing, S1 Commissioner Of Wipro Electronic City Income Tax – 1, Sez, Doddathogur Bengaluru. Vs. Village, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan: Aaccb4490N Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 18/03/2020 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ('Pr.Cit') Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Pr.Cit Erred In Law & Facts In Concluding That The Order Of The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Is "Erroneous

Section 263 of the Act. 7. That the Appellant craves leave, to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement, or alter any or all of the Grounds stated herein above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 Assessee is a company engaged in the business of software development

M/S. SHIVA FERRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd., No. 193, 4Th Floor, Shiv The Principal Sadan Outer Ring Road, Commissioner Of B. Narayanapura, Income-Tax [Central], Bangalore – 560 016. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aaics4564L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

263. 10. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the Coordinate Bench in the case of Pavan Kandkur (supra) has considered a similar issue and held that 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We will consider the issue of whether revision proceedings can be initiated when

ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 263 of the Act.\n\n3. Thus, the Id. PCIT was of the view that allowance of depreciation\non such

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TP), BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 263 of the Act. The said order is therefore set aside for necessary verification of (a) share-based compensation in the form of ESOP cost, depreciation

AMAZON DEVELOPMENT CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TP), BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 263 of the Act. The said order is therefore set aside for necessary verification of (a) share-based compensation in the form of ESOP cost, depreciation

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

depreciation claimed on the WDV. Later on the Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the learned Pr.CIT exercised his power under section 263

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

depreciation claimed on the WDV. Later on the Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the learned Pr.CIT exercised his power under section 263

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

depreciation claimed on the WDV. Later on the Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the learned Pr.CIT exercised his power under section 263

SRI. PAVAN KANDKUR,HUBBALLI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

263 of the Act. The learned A.R. in this regard relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case Gopalakrishnan Rajkumar vs. PCT (2022) 445 ITR 557 (Mad). On mderits the learned A.R. submitted that the AO had called for specific details with respect to the cash deposits made during the demonetization period

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

263 (Bangalore-Tribunal), took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision holding that high turnover is a ground IT(TP)A No.226/Bang/2021 Page 9 of 25 for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. The following were the relevant observations

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

depreciation claimed on the WDV.\nLater on the Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the learned Pr.CIT\nexercised his power under section 263

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

depreciation claimed on the WDV.\nLater on the Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the learned Pr.CIT\nexercised his power under section 263