M/S. DEEPALI COMPANY PRIVAE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax (Earlier Known As :Deepali Co. Officer, Pvt. Ltd.) Ward – 2 (1)(2), 35, Commercial Street, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Pan: Aaacd5120H Appellant Respondent : Shri Narendra Sharma, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Basaganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 03.0.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For A.Y. 2016-17 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Not Allowing Business Loss For The Year Of Rs. 114,66.766/- On The Ground That The Business Of The Assessee Company Is Closed & There Are No Receipts From Operation Of Business.

loss against income from house property and carry forward of loss to the future years amounting to Rs.76,26,766/-. 5. The Ld.AR

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property because income has been correctly offered by the Assessee under the head business income. Accordingly, ground no. 19 of the Assessee is allowed. 18. The Ground no. 20 of the Appeal is with respect to the correct carry forward of losses

M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

loss assessed under the head “Income from house property” of Rs.4,55,96,946 for A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.3,69,76,599 for A.Y. 2013-14 against the income assessed under the head “Income from house property” for the current A.Y.2014-15 and carry forward

M/S NETRA SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC) (ASSESSSS IS ASSESSED TO TAX WITH ACIT CIRCLE-5(1)(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

house property was set off against income from other sources to arrive at the net loss of Rs.1,37,90,289 and this was carried forward

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BPL LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bpl Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), 11Th Km, Bannerghatta Road, Arakere, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaacb 9461 B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

House Property”. The assessee had sold its properties at Delhi and Bengaluru and derives Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.14,88,16,483/-. The assessee had Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) of Rs.27,55,73,246/- carried forward

SRI BANKAPUR CHANNABASAPPA UMAPATHI ,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property and other sources, the gross total income was shown as Nil and the balance business loss of Rs.89,02,037/- was carried forward

SRI BANKAPUR CHANNABASAPPA UMAPATHI ,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property and other sources, the gross total income was shown as Nil and the balance business loss of Rs.89,02,037/- was carried forward

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

houses, cottages, shops, depots, warehouses, machinery, plant, stock in trade, mineral rights, concessions, privileges, licenses, easement or interest in or with respect to any property and to carry on business as proprietors of flat and buildings and to let on lease or otherwise apartments therein and to provide for the conveniences commonly provided in fiats, suites and residential and business

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

houses, cottages, shops, depots, warehouses, machinery, plant, stock in trade, mineral rights, concessions, privileges, licenses, easement or interest in or with respect to any property and to carry on business as proprietors of flat and buildings and to let on lease or otherwise apartments therein and to provide for the conveniences commonly provided in fiats, suites and residential and business

SRI S.R. RAVISHANKAR,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2011-12 Shri.S. R. Ravishankar, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax No.80, 1St Main, Between 3Rd & 4Th (Central), Cross, Chamrajpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 018. Pan : Aclpr 5363 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 O R D E R

loss on sale of the property and its carry forward or the question of determining capital gain on sale of the property by applying the provisions of Sec.50C of the Act cannot be subject matter of an assessment u/s.153A of the Act and therefore the CIT ought not to have and cannot exercise powers u/s.263 of the Act, which cannot

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

forward loss. 2.2 Third ground in ITA No.2136 to 2139/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15 is with regard to sustaining disallowance claimed u/s 35E of the Act. 2.3 Fourth ground in ITA Nos.2136 & 2137/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 is with regard to non-granting of depreciation on intangible assets claimed

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

forward loss. 2.2 Third ground in ITA No.2136 to 2139/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15 is with regard to sustaining disallowance claimed u/s 35E of the Act. 2.3 Fourth ground in ITA Nos.2136 & 2137/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 is with regard to non-granting of depreciation on intangible assets claimed

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

forward loss. 2.2 Third ground in ITA No.2136 to 2139/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15 is with regard to sustaining disallowance claimed u/s 35E of the Act. 2.3 Fourth ground in ITA Nos.2136 & 2137/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 is with regard to non-granting of depreciation on intangible assets claimed

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

forward loss. 2.2 Third ground in ITA No.2136 to 2139/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15 is with regard to sustaining disallowance claimed u/s 35E of the Act. 2.3 Fourth ground in ITA Nos.2136 & 2137/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 is with regard to non-granting of depreciation on intangible assets claimed

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

forward loss. 2.2 Third ground in ITA No.2136 to 2139/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15 is with regard to sustaining disallowance claimed u/s 35E of the Act. 2.3 Fourth ground in ITA Nos.2136 & 2137/Bang/2018 for the AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 is with regard to non-granting of depreciation on intangible assets claimed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

carry forward losses of Rs.2442 cores is assessed at Rs.Nil. However, there was identical addition of Rs.4016,81,72,341 on account of capitalisation of marketing intangibles and Rs.159,34,47,545 on account of ESOP cross-charge. 8. The assessee preferred appeal against both the above orders before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) following the decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

carry forward losses of Rs.2442 cores is assessed at Rs.Nil. However, there was identical addition of Rs.4016,81,72,341 on account of capitalisation of marketing intangibles and Rs.159,34,47,545 on account of ESOP cross-charge. 8. The assessee preferred appeal against both the above orders before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) following the decision

DAVALAGIRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

losses, carry forwarded from previous years amounting to Rs.12,90,274/- 4. The Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has erred in Law, by upholding the Charge of Interest U/s 234 A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961 5. For the Grounds set forth herein above and such other grounds and arguments that may be urged during course