M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

43B of the Act could not apply in case of ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 22` amounts, which are held in Trust as was case of employees’ contribution which are deducted from their income from the employees’ income and was held in Trust by assessee employer as per section

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

43B of the Act could not apply in case of ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 19 of 22` amounts, which are held in Trust as was case of employees’ contribution which are deducted from their income from the employees’ income and was held in Trust by assessee employer as per section

M/S. NIRMAL ENVIRO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

depreciation under section 43A. One of the important reasons for giving the power of rectification to the Tribunal is to see that no prejudice is caused to either of the parties appearing before it by its decision based on a mistake apparent from the record. 13. "Rule of precedent" is an important aspect of legal certainty in rule

SRI PANATI VIDYANATH REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

depreciation under section 43A. One of the important reasons for giving the power of rectification to the Tribunal is to see that no prejudice is caused to either of the parties appearing before it by its decision based on a mistake apparent from the record. 13. "Rule of precedent" is an important aspect of legal certainty in rule

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961( 43 of 1961). (5) (a) The CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re- conditioning, or for the manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for the manufacture

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

43B of the Act. In spite of the said objections, the\nAO had denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act by invoking the\nsection 13(8) of the Act. In the order, the AO had observed that the assessee\nis carrying on the activities which are commercial in nature and therefore\nthey are hit by the proviso

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

43B of the Act. In spite of the said objections, the\nAO had denied the exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act by invoking the\nsection 13(8) of the Act. In the order, the AO had observed that the assessee\nis carrying on the activities which are commercial in nature and therefore\nthey are hit by the proviso

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961( 43 of 1961). (5) (a) The CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 16 to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re- conditioning

DCIT, C-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, BENGALURU

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

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

depreciation at 60%. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012–13 in ITA No. 567/Bang/2020. In that case, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after admitting additional evidence. The ld. counsel further submitted

SUBRAMANYA KARTHIK,BHADRAVATHI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

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

depreciation under section 43A. One of the important reasons for giving the power of rectification to the Tribunal is to see that no prejudice is caused to either of the parties appearing before it by its decision based on a mistake apparent from the record. 13. "Rule of precedent" is an important aspect of legal certainty in rule

ACUITY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE1(1)(1), BENGALURU , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2014-15

43B, any such sum is allowable as a deduction if it is paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income. In the present case, the balance amount of ₹60,79,020 was admittedly paid in August 2014, i.e., before the due date of filing the return for AY 2014–15. Therefore, the statutory condition

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. ACUITY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE(INDIA) PVT LTD, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2014-15

43B, any such sum is allowable as a deduction if it is paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income. In the present case, the balance amount of ₹60,79,020 was admittedly paid in August 2014, i.e., before the due date of filing the return for AY 2014–15. Therefore, the statutory condition

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

43B of the Act, and the workings furnished by the assessee under section 43A for adjustment of foreign-exchange gains to the block of assets. There is no reference to any questionnaire, to any reply filed by the assessee on these aspects, or to any report obtained from a Verification Unit in respect thereof. In a faceless regime, where

M/S. ADVAITH MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

43B(b) towards employer’s contribution to PF/ESI. However the employees’ contribution to PF/ESI is governed by section 36(1)(va) and in this case the assessee deposited belatedly the employees’ contribution as per the respective Act. Further during the course of hearing, the ld. AR also raised the issue that the addition cannot be made

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

depreciation cannot be claimed on capital asset which was claimed as application of income in a previous year.\n16. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned addition of Rs.8,05,368 is bad in law and liable to be quashed.\n\n17. Interest under section 234B\n\n17. 1. The learned Assessing officer has erred

THAMANNA ,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-2(1) , MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

43B shall not apply for the purpose of determining the due date, vis a vis, section 36(1)(va), will apply prospectively. ♦ Without prejudice, even if it is not allowable under section 36(1)(va), alternatively, it has to be allowed under section 37 of the Act in the year of actual payment. 8. In our considered opinion, none

GLOBAL SECURITY SERVICES ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

43B shall not apply for the purpose of Page 5 of 14 determining the due date, vis a vis, section 36(1)(va), will apply prospectively. Without prejudice, even if it is not allowable under section 36(1)(va), alternatively, it has to be allowed under section 37 of the Act in the year of actual payment

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

depreciation of\nRs.37,48,862/-;\nvii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B\namounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-;\nviii