JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 69C of the Act have be looked into afresh. The AO will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the set aside proceedings. 65. Ground No.9 raised by the assessee reads as follows: 9. Disallowance of information technology support services 9.1 The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in law and on facts in disallowing

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

69C or section 69D." Page 10 of 11 The intention of the legislature in introducing the amendment, as stated in the explanatory note, is to avoid unnecessary litigation and to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under section 68. Therefore, it has to be held that, as on the relevant

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.809 To 812/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2020-21

section 154 of the Act is not applicable. In addition to this, assessee is challenging the non-granting of depreciation. 2.1 Ground No.1 is general in nature, which do not require any adjudication. Ground Nos. 2 – Computation of Tax: 3. The ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that in the assessment order passed

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.809 To 812/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2020-21

section 154 of the Act is not applicable. In addition to this, assessee is challenging the non-granting of depreciation. 2.1 Ground No.1 is general in nature, which do not require any adjudication. Ground Nos. 2 – Computation of Tax: 3. The ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that in the assessment order passed

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.809 To 812/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2020-21

section 154 of the Act is not applicable. In addition to this, assessee is challenging the non-granting of depreciation. 2.1 Ground No.1 is general in nature, which do not require any adjudication. Ground Nos. 2 – Computation of Tax: 3. The ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that in the assessment order passed

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.809 To 812/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2020-21

section 154 of the Act is not applicable. In addition to this, assessee is challenging the non-granting of depreciation. 2.1 Ground No.1 is general in nature, which do not require any adjudication. Ground Nos. 2 – Computation of Tax: 3. The ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that in the assessment order passed

M/S. GITA REFRACTORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 11(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2007-08

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed.] 10. The proviso and the explanations to section 147 are not applicable in the case of the assessee as the AO has re-opened the assessment within 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year in which the assessment u/s.143(3) was completed. Hence what is relevant

M/S HMA DATA SYSTEMS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2010-11

69C of the Act was not justified. 21. As far as depreciation claimed by the assessee is concerned, the first thing which we notice is that the assessee is in business of security product distribution. A perusal of depreciation schedule given in the order of assessment shows that apart from BMW Car, there are other assets on which depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

69C of the Act is\nunsustainable in law and the presumption under section 292 C of\nthe Act is not applicable (substantial question of law at Para 26(iv),\n27, 28 & 29 of the modified and additional substantial question of\nlaw)?\n3.\nThe Hon'ble High Court vide common order dated 12.9.2022 in ITA\nNos.371/2015 c/w ITA Nos.372/2015 & 373/2015

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. SRI. BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA, BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claimed by the assessee is not considered nor mentioned the reason in assessment order for not allowing it. The Assessing Officer has not disposed of the application so far. Aggrieved by the order Under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, the assessee is moved this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claimed by the assessee is not considered nor mentioned the reason in assessment order for not allowing it. The Assessing Officer has not disposed of the application so far. Aggrieved by the order Under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, the assessee is moved this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claimed by the assessee is not considered nor mentioned the reason in assessment order for not allowing it. The Assessing Officer has not disposed of the application so far. Aggrieved by the order Under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, the assessee is moved this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claimed by the assessee is not considered nor mentioned the reason in assessment order for not allowing it. The Assessing Officer has not disposed of the application so far. Aggrieved by the order Under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, the assessee is moved this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERSHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claimed by the assessee is not considered nor mentioned the reason in assessment order for not allowing it. The Assessing Officer has not disposed of the application so far. Aggrieved by the order Under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, the assessee is moved this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI.V.C.CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claimed by the assessee is not considered nor mentioned the reason in assessment order for not allowing it. The Assessing Officer has not disposed of the application so far. Aggrieved by the order Under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, the assessee is moved this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SAGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claimed by the assessee is not considered nor mentioned the reason in assessment order for not allowing it. The Assessing Officer has not disposed of the application so far. Aggrieved by the order Under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, the assessee is moved this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI V C CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claimed by the assessee is not considered nor mentioned the reason in assessment order for not allowing it. The Assessing Officer has not disposed of the application so far. Aggrieved by the order Under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, the assessee is moved this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claimed by the assessee is not considered nor mentioned the reason in assessment order for not allowing it. The Assessing Officer has not disposed of the application so far. Aggrieved by the order Under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, the assessee is moved this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals