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, 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

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

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

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

GMR TAMBARAM TINDIVANAM EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result that the revenue appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz

disallowance are as under: ITA.545, 546, 1130 & 1131/Bang/2018 Page - 3 02. Brief facts 2.1 The Government of India has by notification no S.O. 92 dated December 19th 1988 entrusted NHAI with the stretch of National Highway from km 28/0 to km 121/00 in Tambaram Tindivanam Section on NH-45 in the State of Tamil Nadu. NHAI in discharge

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

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. 107. Now, the assessee contends that in light

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

disallowed by both the Revenue authorities. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before us. Page 4 of 29 ITA Nos. 755 to 757/Bang/2023 & C.O. Nos. 6 to 8/Bang/2023 6. The brief facts leading to the case is that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs.189,87,36,250/-, which was processed

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

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 JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

disallowing the deduction of the assessee u/s. 801A. 4. It has now been noticed that certain income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to assessee's failure to disclose Page 7 of 19 fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for A Y 2005-06. The details are as under: 5. During

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NEOBYTES SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai

801A(10) and 10A(7) are also not attracted in the present case. Under the circumstances, the disallowance of Rs.3,18,86,593/- as deduction under section 10A as made by the AO on account of noon-charging of Director’s remuneration is deleted. The ground nos.3,4,5,6 & 7 are allowed”. We are of considered opinion that commercial

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

M/S.L.G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

iv) or u/s 41(1) of the Act. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 3.5.2 With respect to the applicability of section 28(vi) of the Act, the assessee has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited reported in 404 ITR 1, wherein

M/S I G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

iv) or u/s 41(1) of the Act. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 3.5.2 With respect to the applicability of section 28(vi) of the Act, the assessee has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited reported in 404 ITR 1, wherein