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

disallowance made by the Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

2 years. Following the DRP Directions, the Ld.AO disallowed software expenses of Rs.4,51,18,32,386/- as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation on the same at 25% amounting to Rs.1,12,79,58,096/-. The net addition made after allowing depreciation amounted to Rs.3,38,38,74,290/-. 11.4 Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that the software expenses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

2 years. Following the DRP Directions, the Ld.AO disallowed software expenses of Rs.4,51,18,32,386/- as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation on the same at 25% amounting to Rs.1,12,79,58,096/-. The net addition made after allowing depreciation amounted to Rs.3,38,38,74,290/-. 11.4 Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that the software expenses

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UDUPI

2) of section 145\nprovides that the Central Government may notify Income\nComputation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) for any class of\nassessees or for any class of income. Accordingly, the Central\nGovernment notified 10 ICDS vide Notification No.S.O.892(E) dated\n31st March, 2015 with effect from assessment year 2016-17. It is to\nbe noted that ICDS is not meant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UPPUNDA

2) of section 145\nprovides that the Central Government may notify Income\nComputation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) for any class of\nassessees or for any class of income. Accordingly, the Central\nGovernment notified 10 ICDS vide Notification No.S.O.892(E) dated\n31st March, 2015 with effect from assessment year 2016-17. It is to\nbe noted that ICDS is not meant

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

145(3) of the Act. There has been no allegation of suppression of sales, inflation of expenditure, or violation of provisions such as section 40A(2) of the Act. The accounts are fully vouched and supported by proper evidence. In such circumstances, the settled law is that the Revenue cannot substitute its own view of what profits ought to have

WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance as per computation in the computation of income under normal provisions of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Grounds on calculation of tax liability under MAT provisions u/s 115JB of the Act: i. The learned authorities below are not justified in adopting the assessed income as Book profit while computing the income u/s 115JB

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

145(3) of the Act. There has been no allegation of suppression of\nsales, inflation of expenditure, or violation of provisions such as section\n40A(2) of the Act. The accounts are fully vouched and supported by\nproper evidence. In such circumstances, the settled law is that the\nRevenue cannot substitute its own view of what profits ought to have

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

145(3) of the Act. There has been no allegation of suppression of\nsales, inflation of expenditure, or violation of provisions such as section\n40A(2) of the Act. The accounts are fully vouched and supported by\nproper evidence. In such circumstances, the settled law is that the\nRevenue cannot substitute its own view of what profits ought to have

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

145(3) of the Act. There has been no allegation of suppression of\nsales, inflation of expenditure, or violation of provisions such as section\n40A(2) of the Act. The accounts are fully vouched and supported by\nproper evidence. In such circumstances, the settled law is that the\nRevenue cannot substitute its own view of what profits ought to have

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

145(3) of the Act. There has been no allegation of suppression of\nsales, inflation of expenditure, or violation of provisions such as section\n40A(2) of the Act. The accounts are fully vouched and supported by\nproper evidence. In such circumstances, the settled law is that the\nRevenue cannot substitute its own view of what profits ought to have

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BELLARY vs. M/S. SOUTH WEST MINING LIMITED, BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

2) Expenditure on the acquisition of the deposits of any of the specified minerals or groups of associated minerals or of any rights in or over such deposits. (3) Expenditure of a capital nature in respect of any building, machinery, plant or furniture for which allowance by way of depreciation is admissible under s. 32. 52. The amortisation

BANGALORE BEVERAGES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 145(1) were subject to mandate of ASI which also prescribed that 'Accounting policies adopted by assessee should be such so as to represent true and fair view of state of affairs of business, profession or vocation in financial statements prepared and presented on basis of such accounting policies—In name of compliance with s 145(1), it could

M/S BANGALORE BEVERAGES PVT LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 145(1) were subject to mandate of ASI which also prescribed that 'Accounting policies adopted by assessee should be such so as to represent true and fair view of state of affairs of business, profession or vocation in financial statements prepared and presented on basis of such accounting policies—In name of compliance with s 145(1), it could

M/S. PARIMALA AGRO FOODS & FEEDS (P) LTD.,,SHIVAMOGGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, , SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance of alleged decrease in the value of closing stock amounting to Rs.64,82,386/-. M/s. Parimala Agro Foods & Feeds (P) Ltd., Shivamogga Page 3 of 7 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Section 145 of the Act reads as follows: Method of accounting: Section 145: (1) Income chargeable under the head

ASHRAF NAFISA ALTHAF,MOODUBIDRI MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowed u/s. 43B of the Act. We observe that the assessee has recorded his turnover after deducting the service tax received and the service tax has been credited separately. In section 145, of the Act for determining the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession or income from other sources, the same

KHIM ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMTIED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

2)(ii), without satisfying the statutory requirement of first arriving at a satisfaction as required by the mandate of law, having regard to the accounts of the assessee as placed before him, therefore, am unable to persuade myself to uphold the disallowance of Rs.2,22,963/- which had been sustained by the CIT(A). The order

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

145 of the Act (Para 26): “……Income tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income Tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there