NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

section 80IA. We have gone through the Order of the CIT(A) and we notice that the learned CIT(A) has allowed this ground by following the judgment in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 in ITA Nos.755 to 757/Bang/2023 dated 19.12.2023. The observation of the CIT(A) is as under: “8. Ground

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

section 80IA. We have gone through the Order of the CIT(A) and we notice that the learned CIT(A) has allowed this ground by following the judgment in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 in ITA Nos.755 to 757/Bang/2023 dated 19.12.2023. The observation of the CIT(A) is as under: “8. Ground

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

section 80IA. We have gone through the Order of the CIT(A) and we notice that the learned CIT(A) has allowed this ground by following the judgment in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 in ITA Nos.755 to 757/Bang/2023 dated 19.12.2023. The observation of the CIT(A) is as under: “8. Ground

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

section 80IA. We have gone through the Order of the CIT(A) and we notice that the learned CIT(A) has allowed this ground by following the judgment in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 in ITA Nos.755 to 757/Bang/2023 dated 19.12.2023. The observation of the CIT(A) is as under: “8. Ground

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

section 80IA. We have gone through the Order of the CIT(A) and we notice that the learned CIT(A) has allowed this ground by following the judgment in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 in ITA Nos.755 to 757/Bang/2023 dated 19.12.2023. The observation of the CIT(A) is as under: “8. Ground

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

section 80IA. We have gone through the Order of the CIT(A) and we notice that the learned CIT(A) has allowed this ground by following the judgment in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 in ITA Nos.755 to 757/Bang/2023 dated 19.12.2023. The observation of the CIT(A) is as under: “8. Ground

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

section 80IA. We have gone through the Order of the CIT(A) and we notice that the learned CIT(A) has allowed this ground by following the judgment in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 in ITA Nos.755 to 757/Bang/2023 dated 19.12.2023. The observation of the CIT(A) is as under: “8. Ground

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

section 80IA. We have gone through the Order of the CIT(A) and we notice that the learned CIT(A) has allowed this ground by following the judgment in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 in ITA Nos.755 to 757/Bang/2023 dated 19.12.2023. The observation of the CIT(A) is as under: “8. Ground

ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI vs. M/S BELLAD & CO, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

801A. This issue was discussed at length during the course of assessment proceedings and when it was proposed to disallow the claim for the year under appeal, it was submitted by the appellant that as per section

M/S BELLAD & COMPANY,HUBLI vs. DCIT, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

801A. This issue was discussed at length during the course of assessment proceedings and when it was proposed to disallow the claim for the year under appeal, it was submitted by the appellant that as per section

MR. JITENDRA KUMAR NAHATA,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1) REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

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

section 801A, shall be allowed if return is furnished before the due date of filing the return and held that the assessee is squarely entitled for deduction u/s 801A of the Act as all the conditions therein were duly fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld. DR did not refute any of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) by producing

M/S. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 801A of the Act, otherwise eligible, and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 19. After careful reading of the aforesaid order, we find that the ld.Bench was also pleased to relay upon the judgment

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 108. Now, the assessee contends that in light

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 108. Now, the assessee contends that in light

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

disallowed the deduction\nu/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in\nfavour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the\nassessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is\ncovered.\n107. Now, the assessee contends that in light

M/S. JEANS KNIT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. The assessee while filing the return of income has claimed deduction of Rs.94/- u/s 80JJAA of the Act. During the course of asst. proceedings, the assessee revised the claim u/s 80JJAA of the Act to Rs.7,99,50,456/-stating that in the return of income the deduction was inadvertently claimed

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

801A of the Act as claimed, returned income be accepted and the interest levied be also deleted. 2. Facts of the case are that there was an intimation made u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for AY 2019- 20 vide DIN No. CPC/1920/A3/197242969 dated 15.05.2020 raising a demand of Rs.11

M/S. ABB LIMITED(FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

801A from the business profits for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80HHC if the export divisions have not claimed deduction under section 80IA as such direction is opposed to the provisions of section 80IB(13) rws ITA Nos. 790, 791, 896 and 897/Bang/2008 Page 10 of 48 80IA(9) in as much as the profits