TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

4% and taking the view that half of the same should be attributed to the benefit of the assessee. However, we notice that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has approved the TP adjustment of 0.50% in respect of Corporate guarantee given in the case of Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (supra). Though the Ld. A.R. has pleaded for an adjustment

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

4% and taking the view that half of the same should be attributed to the benefit of the assessee. However, we notice that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has approved the TP adjustment of 0.50% in respect of Corporate guarantee given in the case of Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (supra). Though the Ld. A.R. has pleaded for an adjustment

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

4% and taking the view that half of the same should be attributed to the benefit of the assessee. However, we notice that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has approved the TP adjustment of 0.50% in respect of Corporate guarantee given in the case of Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (supra). Though the Ld. A.R. has pleaded for an adjustment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

4% and taking the view that half of the same should be attributed to the benefit of the assessee. However, we notice that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has approved the TP adjustment of 0.50% in respect of Corporate guarantee given in the case of Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (supra). Though the Ld. A.R. has pleaded for an adjustment

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

4% and taking the view that half of the same should be attributed to the benefit of the assessee. However, we notice that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has approved the TP adjustment of 0.50% in respect of Corporate guarantee given in the case of Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (supra). Though the Ld. A.R. has pleaded for an adjustment

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

4 of the assessment order, where it was mentioned that the tax deducted in respect of the payment was made over to the IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 54 of 202 Government in the subsequent year and, therefore, depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

4 of the assessment order, where it was mentioned that the tax deducted in respect of the payment was made over to the IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 54 of 202 Government in the subsequent year and, therefore, depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

255 (SC), laid down an important observation to decide the fate of Page 6 forex gain/loss and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee treating the loss as capital in nature. Further in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A, the Ld.CIT(A) calculated the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs.4,69,055/- and directed the Ld.AO to restrict upto

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowance of expenses at Rs.7,10,500/-) and finally he determined the income of (+) Rs.40,120/-. Thus, assessed income in this case is only Rs.40,120/- and as such jurisdiction in this case will definitely be of SMC. It is therefore, I have to look into only assessed income as stipulated in sub-section (3) of section 255

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

255 ITR 26 (Gujarat) wherein the Court held that where the assessee makes a claim for depreciation on enhanced cost, which is actual cost in its hands, it was necessary for the authority who wanted to determine the ‘actual cost’ as required by Explanation 3 to section 43(1) to place some evidence on record. The ITO is required

DCIT vs. M/S JUPITER CAPIAL PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

255,97,26,543/. The CIT(A) deleted the interest Rs.64,12,770/- holding that out of the borrowings of Rs.1.7 Crore was paid towards the cost of the aircraft. He failed to appreciate that of the total interest Rs.1,71,07,416/- debited to the profit and loss account Rs.38,95,273/- was directly relatable to purchase of aircraft

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Consequently, Grounds 1 to 4 of the assessee's appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Grounds 5 to 11 – Deduction u/s.10B and 10AA of the Act and denial of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. 7.1.1 These grounds (supra) are raised in respect of the denial of carry forward of unabsorbed

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Section 153A. Of equal significance is the introduction of the concept of abatement of all pending assessments as a consequence of which curtains come down on regular assessments.ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 292B of the Act lacks merit as the plain language of the said Section makes it abundantly clear that this provision condones the invalidity which may arise merely by mistake, defect or omission in notice. The said Section reads as under: - 292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment