M/S MHM HOLDINGS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Mhm Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Range - 12 Bengaluru No. 52, Bassappa Road Shantinagar Bengaluru 560027 Pan – Aabcm6614L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Parthasarathi, Adv. Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M.

depreciable assets, The book value in case of other assets. Net worth is deemed to be the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement for section 48 and section 49 of the Act. As per section 50B

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU vs. M/S. BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

depreciable assets, The book value in case of other assets. Net worth is deemed to be the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement for section 48 and section 49 of the Act. As per section 50B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

50B of the Act for the purpose of computing WDV for slump sale. 1.10. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO has erred in not relying on the net-worth certificate issued by Chartered Accountant in Form 3CEA. 1.11. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Act does

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

50B, which lays down a special computing mechanism for computing the gains therefrom. Gain from slump sale has been held by judicial decisions to be not taxable neither as business income u/s. 41 (2) nor as Capital gains u/s. 45 of the Act. To attract section 41 (2), the subject matter should be depreciable

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

depreciable assets, The book value in case of other assets. Net worth is deemed to be the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement for section 48 and section 49 of the Act. As per section 50B

M/S MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

50B, the aggregate value of total assets for computing the net worth in the case of capital assets in respect of which the whole of the expenditure has been allowed or is allowable as a deduction under section 35AD shall be treated as nil. 16.6 A new section 73A has also been inserted to give effect to the consequential provisions

M/S MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

50B, the aggregate value of total assets for computing the net worth in the case of capital assets in respect of which the whole of the expenditure has been allowed or is allowable as a deduction under section 35AD shall be treated as nil. 16.6 A new section 73A has also been inserted to give effect to the consequential provisions

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

50B is a self-contained code which provides for a deduction of net worth of the undertaking and not sales tax paid. 4. Payments to clubs for membership and subscription expenses 4.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing club membership and subscription expenses as being capital in nature without giving cognizance

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

depreciation, however, the DRP confirmed the disallowance stating that the additional evidence produced before the DRP could not be verified due to time constraint. 55. Before us, the ld. AR drew our attention to the additional evidence submitted before the DRP in the form of bills and vouchers at page 476 of PB. He submitted that the tax auditor

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16

depreciation of Rs.1,64,95,840/-(Rs.84,56,239/-+Rs.80,39,601/-) on intangibles being brand names and trademarks valued at Rs.65,26,40,150/-. 2. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that revaluation of the intangibles was effected by the erstwhile firm, before the succession, and not that of the Appellant as a result of on succession

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PADMINI PRODUCTS PVT LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation of Rs 1,42,92,623/- on intangibles being brand names and trademarks valued at s.65.26.40,150/-. 2. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that revaluation of the intangibles was effected by the erstwhile firm, before the succession, and not that of the Appellant and therefore, they were not justified in observing that the aforesaid intangible assets were

M/S.PADMINI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation of Rs 1,42,92,623/- on intangibles being brand names and trademarks valued at s.65.26.40,150/-. 2. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that revaluation of the intangibles was effected by the erstwhile firm, before the succession, and not that of the Appellant and therefore, they were not justified in observing that the aforesaid intangible assets were

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

depreciation on such asset. The learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga Vs. CIT 34 ITR 10 and submitted that when the employee of the assessee withdrew 38 IT(TP)A No.1364/Bang/2011 Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. the money from the bank account and misappropriate the same, the claim