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

ii) an amount equal to half per cent ( as amended) of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income: 17. From the above computation mechanism, it is clear that while calculating disallowance, only those investments have

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

ii) an amount equal to half per cent ( as amended) of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income: 17. From the above computation mechanism, it is clear that while calculating disallowance, only those investments have

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

ii) an amount equal to half per cent ( as amended) of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income: 17. From the above computation mechanism, it is clear that while calculating disallowance, only those investments have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

ii) an amount equal to half per cent ( as amended) of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income: 17. From the above computation mechanism, it is clear that while calculating disallowance, only those investments have

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

ii) an amount equal to half per cent ( as amended) of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income: 17. From the above computation mechanism, it is clear that while calculating disallowance, only those investments have

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

ii) an amount equal to half per cent ( as amended) of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income: 17. From the above computation mechanism, it is clear that while calculating disallowance, only those investments have

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

ii) an amount equal to half per cent ( as amended) of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income: 17. From the above computation mechanism, it is clear that while calculating disallowance, only those investments have

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

ii) an amount equal to half per cent ( as amended) of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income: 17. From the above computation mechanism, it is clear that while calculating disallowance, only those investments have

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

disallow the deduction on the ground at the assessee had not maintained separate books of account. The assessment order for the earlier assessment year i.e. the assessment year 2001-02 was under section 143(3). That assessment order records that Unit-II had started commercial production in March, 2000, i.e., eleven years after Unit-I came into existence. The order

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

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