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)

5A: The impugned assessment order under\nSection 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 is bad and invalid\nas the same is barred by limitation under Section\n153B(1).\nGound 5B: The impugned assessment order under\nSection 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 is bad and non-est\nPage 34 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\nas the Learned AO has obtained a single approval

M/S. GOKULAM SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

section 115JB 1 Whether the profit and Loss account is prepared in Yes accordance with the provisions of Parts II of Schedule III to the Companies Act, 2013 (If yes, write ‘Y’, if no write ‘N’ 2 If 1 is no, whether profit and loss account is prepared in Yes accordance with the provisions of the Act governing such company

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

5A: The impugned assessment order under\nSection 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 is bad and invalid\nas the same is barred by limitation under Section\n153B(1).\nGound 5B: The impugned assessment order under\nSection 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 is bad and non-est\nPage 34 of 74\nJCIT\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\nCentral Range vide\nas the Learned

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

5A: The impugned assessment order under\nSection 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 is bad and invalid\nas the same is barred by limitation under Section\n153B(1).\n\nGound 5B: The impugned assessment order under\nSection 143(3) dated 29.09.2021 is bad and non-est\n\nPage 31 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\nas the Learned AO has obtained

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

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

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. 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

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

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

M/S PROVIMI ANIMAL NUTRITION INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on the capital expenditure. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the orders passed by the AO in both the years on this issue. 4. We heard the parties and perused the record. We noticed that the issue as to whether furnishing of Form No.3CL is mandatory for allowing deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act came to be considered

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 234C of the Act of INR 64,731. [corresponding to ground 19] 23. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify thegrounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing ofthis Appeal. [corresponding to ground20] ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL Transfer Pricing Related: 24. The learned AO / TPO erred