M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year failing within the relevant previous year". The scheme of the section 115JB is similar to section 115J and section 115JA. The difference insofar as it is relevant for the present purpose between section 115JB

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year failing within the relevant previous year". The scheme of the section 115JB is similar to section 115J and section 115JA. The difference insofar as it is relevant for the present purpose between section 115JB

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorised under other

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

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)

45,376/-\nb) The addition made under the head undervaluation of stock u/s.145A\nof the Act – Rs.68,53,999/-\nc) Addition for the contravention of section 40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs.20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs.23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based

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

45,376/-\nb) The addition made under the head undervaluation of stock u/s. 145A\nof the Act – Rs. 68,53,999/-\nc) Addition for the contravention of section 40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs. 17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs. 20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

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

45,102/-, and thus, the percentage of these receipts to the total receipts works out to 70% which is greater than the threshold prescribed i.e. 20%. Even if the Income as per the Income & Expenditure Account were to be . Page 18 of 30 considered, the total income from E-Procurement Collections is Rs. 36,13,89,940/- and the total

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

45,18,838/- as the carry forward loss. The said wrong claim was also accepted by the CPC and the set off was granted in the A.Y. 2017-18. 10. On perusing the details filed by the assessee and the copies of the ITRs filed in respect of the A.Ys

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

depreciation.\nIt has also been held by the Tribunal that the assessee\nhas been established to promote rapid and orderly\ndevelopment of industries in the State and to assist in\nimplementation of the policy of the Government within the\npurview of the KIAD Act, to facilitate in establishing\ninfrastructure projects and to function on 'No Profit-No\nLoss' basis

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

depreciation.\nIt has also been held by the Tribunal that the assessee\nhas been established to promote rapid and orderly\ndevelopment of industries in the State and to assist in\nimplementation of the policy of the Government within the\npurview of the KIAD Act, to facilitate in establishing\ninfrastructure projects and to function on 'No Profit-No\nLoss' basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

45 DTR 218 - Union Bank of India vs ACIT, LTU (ITAT) (Mumbai) in ITA Nos.4702 to 4706/Mum/2010 dtd. 30.06.2011 - Indian Bank vs Addl. CIT (ITAT) (Chennai) in ITA No.469/Mds/2010 dtd. 03.08.2011 - Union Bank of India (ITAT Mumbai) in ITA Nos. 4155 to4161 of 2011 dtd. 27.03.2012 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT I ITA No.447/2015 dtd 30.08.2017 = 2017-TIOL

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

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

45 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n5. As regards unsigned notice under Section 143(2) dated\n13.08.2018:\n\n5. 1. Refer 143(2) notice dated 13.08.2018 issued by ACIT CIRCLE_2(1),\nMangaluru. The same is invalid as the same was not signed either\nmanually or digitally. {PB Annexure 1 – Pg.121 -122}\n\n5. 2. The Learned