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

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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

801A (13) stipulates that benefit under the said Section was/is not available to a contractor earryin' on works contract. The said "clarificatory" explanation was inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective elect from 01.04.2000. The CIT (Appeals) in the first appellate order has specifically mentioned that the Finance Act, 2007 received the Presidential assent

SHRI. DUNICHAND KHITRI RAJA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Dunichand Khitri Raja, The Assistant Commissioner Of #304, 16Th Cross, Sadashivnagar, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 080. Vs. Cpc, Pan : Addpr 6538 G Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ankit, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2023

7. The learned DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee had set up a windmill which is eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. Assessee had got the books of accounts audited with reference to the windmill established and obtained the audit