HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

253 12 Disallowance of other provisions 3,99,95,033 13 Expenditure debited under the head cost of 84,98,42,348 goods sold 14 Outside contract service 36,14,59,731 15 Date of approval and disallowed under 28,31,39,077 section

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

253 12 Disallowance of other provisions 3,99,95,033 13 Expenditure debited under the head cost of 84,98,42,348 goods sold 14 Outside contract service 36,14,59,731 15 Date of approval and disallowed under 28,31,39,077 section

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

disallowing the claim of exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Act with respect to the capital gains on the long term equity shares and have failed to take cognizance of the DEMAT statement, contract notes, etc submitted during the course of assessment proceedings on the facts and circumstances. ii. The authorities below have erred in treating the long

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowed a sum of Rs.49,35,000/- under section 11(5) of the Act. 4.4 He submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought not to have passed an ex-parte order and mere non- exercise of right to be heard by the assessee during the proceedings could not be reason enough for the Commissioner (Appeals

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance amount of Rs. 52,08,24,535/-, which has resulted in short computation of income to the tune of Rs. 8,03,98,978/- resulting in a short levy of tax, Rs. 2,80,94,618/- and interest under section 234B of Rs. 84,28,386/- aggregating to Rs. 3,65,23,004/-• 9. The Petitioner / Appellant being aggrieved

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance amount of Rs. 52,08,24,535/-, which has resulted in short computation of income to the tune of Rs. 8,03,98,978/- resulting in a short levy of tax, Rs. 2,80,94,618/- and interest under section 234B of Rs. 84,28,386/- aggregating to Rs. 3,65,23,004/-• 9. The Petitioner / Appellant being aggrieved

MANOHARS CATERING ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Manohars Catering, Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax & / Or The Partners/ Circle-1, Bangalore Legal Representatives Of (Present Jurisdiction-Income Tax The Partners Of Manohars Officer-Ward7(2)(3), Bangalore) Catering As Stipulated U/S V. 189(1), 189(3) & 189(4) Of The 1961 Act Number 666, Indiranagar 1St Stage Bengaluru-560038 Karnataka Pan:Aalfm1212B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Raghvendra, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2024 O R D E R

disallowed by the AO. The AO passed assessment order dated 24.12.2010 u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, making aggregate additions to the tune of Rs. 9,77,896/- on the above two counts. 4. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A), which stood dismissed by ld. CIT(A) ex-parte in limine for non prosecution

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowed by the ld. AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act: Particulars Amount (Rs.) NPA 12,00,000 Employee Retirement Benefit 6,00,000 Employee Leave encashment 9,70,000 Total 27,70,000 3.5 The assessee contended that the above expenses are to be debited to the Profit & Loss account in conformity with

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowed by the ld. AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act: Particulars Amount (Rs.) NPA 12,00,000 Employee Retirement Benefit 6,00,000 Employee Leave encashment 9,70,000 Total 27,70,000 3.5 The assessee contended that the above expenses are to be debited to the Profit & Loss account in conformity with

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(3) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

253, the only two questions answered in the judgment were: (i) "Whether sub section (2) and sub section (3) of Section 14A inserted with effect from 01.04.2007 will apply to all pending assessments? (ii) Whether Rule 8D is retrospectively applicable?" The question whether the section will attract even when there is potential of exempt dividend income from share investment

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

3) by itself being such a finding, based on the satisfaction or otherwise, of the Assessing Officer and no separate order finding on this count is envisaged as per the provisions of law. 7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the disallowance is made after examining all the issues and the AO has also relied upon the decision

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

3) by itself being such a finding, based on the satisfaction or otherwise, of the Assessing Officer and no separate order finding on this count is envisaged as per the provisions of law. 7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the disallowance is made after examining all the issues and the AO has also relied upon the decision

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

253(3) of I.T. Act.\nPage 11 of 18\n2.12 At this stage, it is pertinent to mention the various precedents\nas follows:\n(i)\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and\nChhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 762, observed as\nunder:\n“In construing s.5 it is relevant to bear in mind

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

disallowance without providing an opportunity of being heard.” 2. The main issue in this appeal is dismissing the appeal by the NFAC without admitting the same on the reason that there was no “sufficient cause” for filing appeal belatedly before him. As per the order of NFAC, the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 10.6.2019 served

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

3) after withdrawal of the registration under 12A, is without\njurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed.\n3. Assessment order passed in wrong status is bad in law\n3.1 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in concluding that\nthe appellant is assessable in the status of 'Association of Persons'.\nThe assessment made and the order passed

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1 , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

3) after withdrawal of the registration under 12A, is without\njurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed.\n\n3. Assessment order passed in wrong status is bad in law\n\n3.1 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in concluding that\nthe appellant is assessable in the status of 'Association of Persons'.\nThe assessment made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. KARNATAKA BANK LTD., MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and\n2017-18 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

3 would only be treated as\nacademic and hence, not answered. in view of the same, in terms\nof the order dated 31.01.2020, the substantial questions of law\nNos.2 & 4 are answered in favour of the assessee and in terms of\nthe aforesaid judgment.\n6.1\nRespectfully following the above judgment, we decide the\nissue in the above terms

VENKATESH SRINIVAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharysri Venkatesh Srinivas No.75, 2Nd Floor, 8Th Cross Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027 ………. Appellant [Pan: Abcpv8163C]

disallowance of the claim made under section 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.3,10,58,569/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to claim a deduction of Rs.3,10,58,569/- under section 54F of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case