ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground No. 15 is that 22. the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of maintenance charges for Rs. 27,71,000/- by treating prior period item. 23. The AO found that the “repair & maintenance charges others” includes an amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The next issue raised by the assessee vide ground No. 15 is that 22. the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of maintenance charges for Rs. 27,71,000/- by treating prior period item. 23. The AO found that the “repair & maintenance charges others” includes an amount

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

depreciable accounts as per balance sheet 4.2 Further, he submitted that at the time of assessment, the A.O. observed that the assessee’s total contract receipts was Rs.1,08,48,333/- on that assessee declared income of Rs.13,66,220/- which is about 8% of the total contract receipts. Further, the A.O. observed that payments under head Labour and Salary

DY.DIT, BANGALORE vs. MAHARANI LAKSHMI AMMANI COLLEGE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 11(1)(a) takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet the expenses incurred for charitable or religious purposes. Hence, even if the expenses for such purposes have been incurred in the earlier years and the said expenses are adjusted against the income of a subsequent year, the income of such subsequent year

ACIT-(E), CIRCLE-1,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BHAGWAN MAHAVEER MEMORIAL JAIN TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Trust, No.17, Millers Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru-560 052. … Respondent Pan:Aaatb 0895 L

depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and Page 11 of 14 institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional amount does not excluded from the condition

ITO, BANGALORE vs. SHARDDHA TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoincome-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Shraddha Trust, No.37/10, Yellappa Chetty Layout, Ulsoor Road, Bengaluru-560042. … Respondent Pan: Aacts 7373J

depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional amount does not excluded from the condition of application of income

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. TARALABALU BRUHANMATT, CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional amount does not excluded from the condition of application of income

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. VISHWACHETAN FOUNDATION, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raothe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Exemption), Circle-1, Mangalore. . Appellant Vs. Vishwachetan Foundation Ibmr, 1St Main, Jaynagar, Opp: Kims, Hubbali. Appellant By : Shri S Nambirajan, Jcit Respondent By : Shri Naginchand Khincha, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17-5-2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-5-2016 O R D E R

264 ITR 110. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard learned DR as well as learned AR and considered the relevant material on record. The learned AR of the assessee has pointed out that this issue is now covered by the decisions of Hon’ble High

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. THE NEW CAMBRIDGE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional amount does not excluded from the condition of application of income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. DR. T. M. A. PAI FOUNDATION, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

264 ITR 110. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and we find that on both the issues, the matter is covered in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal order on which reliance has been placed by ld. AR of assessee. In respect of first issue i.e. regarding allowability of depreciation, the issue was decided by the tribunal

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 32 of the Act. 6. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 20.04.2021 in which the TP adjustment and disallowance of provision of warranty was retained. With regard to expenditure incurred on annual license fees, the Assessing Officer has not followed the directions issued by the DRP in allowing depreciation. Aggrieved

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation of assets and also exemption u/s 80G was granted without examining the evidences with regard to this. Now the contention of the ld.AR is that the CIT is not justified, in exercising power u/s 263 of the Act as the AO has taken one possible view, which cannot be disputed by the CIT. In our opinion, The Assessing Officer

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

264, following the above decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provisions namely section 10B(i), 10B(5), 10B(6)(ii), and section

JANATA TRADERS,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

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

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

264. Therefore, a reasoned order on a substantial issue is legally necessary. The judgments on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the assessee also points to the same direction. They have held that orders, which are subversive of the administration of revenue, must be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

NEPAL SINGH RATHOD (HUF),HUBLI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI, HUBLI

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

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

264. Therefore, a reasoned order on a substantial issue is legally necessary. The judgments on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the assessee also points to the same direction. They have held that orders, which are subversive of the administration of revenue, must be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

DCIT, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANIPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

264 ITR 110 (Bom) for allowing carry forward 4 and set off of deficit of earlier years, even though said decision was not pursued in further appeal in view of nil tax effect involved, and as per section 268A the said decision is not binding in respect of this assessee. The learned CIT (Appeals) also erred in failing to take

M/S DIVYASREE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees, viz

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

264/- in AY 2014-15, the AO disallowed the same in that year. In other earlier years, since the assessee did not claim any depreciation, there was no occasion for the AO to make any addition. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO in AY 2008-09 to 2014-15 and also concurred with the observations

M/S DIVYASHREE INFRASTRUCTURE ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees, viz

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

264/- in AY 2014-15, the AO disallowed the same in that year. In other earlier years, since the assessee did not claim any depreciation, there was no occasion for the AO to make any addition. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO in AY 2008-09 to 2014-15 and also concurred with the observations

M/S DIVYASHREE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees, viz

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

264/- in AY 2014-15, the AO disallowed the same in that year. In other earlier years, since the assessee did not claim any depreciation, there was no occasion for the AO to make any addition. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO in AY 2008-09 to 2014-15 and also concurred with the observations