TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

270/- was personal drawings. The balance payment of Rs.3,41,850/- was paid as under: Date Particular Amount (Rs.) Engineer work charges 18.01.2013 21.250 01.08.2012 Labour development cess 99,000 26.02.2013 Mahaganapathi Steel 2,00,000 Professional 21,600 31.01.2013 3,41,850 Total 8. Further in respect of balance amount, assessee has clearly violated the provisions of section

M/S. WINDSOR GARDENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is confirmed.“ Page 5 of 10 5. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. 6. The ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and he submitted that entire investments were made out of own funds and he calculated average investment of Rs.8

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance of additional depreciation on crates and pellets by categorizing the same as ‘Furniture & Fixtures’ instead of as ‘Plant and Machinery’. 8.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessment year 2015-16 in IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 cited (supra), wherein the Tribunal held as under

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance of additional depreciation on crates and pellets by categorizing the same as ‘Furniture & Fixtures’ instead of as ‘Plant and Machinery’. 8.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessment year 2015-16 in IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 cited (supra), wherein the Tribunal held as under

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance by holding that the provisions represented unascertained liabilities and therefore, the same were not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. 37.2 At the outset, we note that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting. Under this system, income and expenditure are recognised on accrual basis and not on payment basis. This position is well recognised

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance by holding that the provisions represented unascertained liabilities and therefore, the same were not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. 37.2 At the outset, we note that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting. Under this system, income and expenditure are recognised on accrual basis and not on payment basis. This position is well recognised

M/S AKASH INN ,SHIMOGA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance of expenditure of Rs.6,99,270/- relating to liquor section and also in not fully deleting the disallowance of expenses

M/S INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RAGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 28 (iv) of ₹ 48,845,724/–, disallowance u/s. 37 of ₹ 150,000, the disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source of Page 5 of 18 ₹ 3,768,805 and further disallowance u/s. 37 of ₹ 941,962 was retained. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 5. During the course of hearing

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

disallowing the claim of Rs. 218,08,80,715/- of the appellant bank u/s 36(1)(vii) being the bad debts written off by the non-rural branches of the Appellant bank. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the non- rural debts are not controlled by the proviso to Section

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

disallowing the claim of Rs. 218,08,80,715/- of the appellant bank u/s 36(1)(vii) being the bad debts written off by the non-rural branches of the Appellant bank. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the non- rural debts are not controlled by the proviso to Section

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. (T.P) A. No.1670/Bang/2012 S.P. No.120/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kalyani Platina, 3Rd Floor, Block 1, No.6 & 24, Epip Zone Phase 1, Whitefield, Bangalore-560 066 …. Appellant. Pan Aabcs 6967N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri D. Sudhakara Reddy, Cit-Iii (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 5.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 6.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2008-09 By The Dcit, Circle 11(4), Bangalore Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') Vide Order Dt.29.10.2012, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Rws 144C(8) Of The Act Vide Order Dt.17.9.2012. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

270/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. • The learned AO erred in disallowing the expenditure of Rs.112,595,270

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

270/- on 26/09/2011. The said return was revised on 09/03/2012 declaring income of Rs.21,52,90,550/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the assessing officer vide order dated 19/02/2013 under section 143(3) at total income of Rs.146,04,21,978/- and also computed liability under section 115JB of Rs.72,71,14,332/-. While

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

270/- on 26/09/2011. The said return was revised on 09/03/2012 declaring income of Rs.21,52,90,550/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the assessing officer vide order dated 19/02/2013 under section 143(3) at total income of Rs.146,04,21,978/- and also computed liability under section 115JB of Rs.72,71,14,332/-. While

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

270/- on 26/09/2011. The said return was revised on 09/03/2012 declaring income of Rs.21,52,90,550/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the assessing officer vide order dated 19/02/2013 under section 143(3) at total income of Rs.146,04,21,978/- and also computed liability under section 115JB of Rs.72,71,14,332/-. While

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

270/- on 26/09/2011. The said return was revised on 09/03/2012 declaring income of Rs.21,52,90,550/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the assessing officer vide order dated 19/02/2013 under section 143(3) at total income of Rs.146,04,21,978/- and also computed liability under section 115JB of Rs.72,71,14,332/-. While

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

270/- on 26/09/2011. The said return was revised on 09/03/2012 declaring income of Rs.21,52,90,550/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the assessing officer vide order dated 19/02/2013 under section 143(3) at total income of Rs.146,04,21,978/- and also computed liability under section 115JB of Rs.72,71,14,332/-. While