ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.EAGLETON PROPERTY HOLDINGS CIRCLE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eagleton Property Holdings, Income Tax #4, Model House Street, Circle -7(2)(1), Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 004. Pan : Aabfe 9867 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Arun Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 7.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 7.1.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

property, take measurements of the residential units constructed in this project and furnish a report. The D.V.O, after inspecting the approval of the local authorities, taking measurements of few sample residential units submitted a report in which he gave measurements of builtup area of seven residential units. Out of these seven units, the built up area of five residential units

M/S VALUE & BUDGET HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

35D of the Act. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 49,78,941/- u/s. 14A of the Act even though the appellant has not incurred any expenditure in earning the exempt income. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

M/S VALUE & BUDGET HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

35D of the Act. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 49,78,941/- u/s. 14A of the Act even though the appellant has not incurred any expenditure in earning the exempt income. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

M/S VALUE & BUDGET HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

35D of the Act. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 49,78,941/- u/s. 14A of the Act even though the appellant has not incurred any expenditure in earning the exempt income. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

ADDL.CIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

ADDL.CI.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

M/S. CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

35D of an amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/-. 8) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the write off of investments of an amount of Rs.24,00,000/- 9) For all these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the Appellant request that its appeal be allowed. ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page

M/S THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

house comparables. In absence of internal comparables, the taxpayer can and would need to rely upon external comparables, 1e comparable transactions by independent enterprises. For several reasons, database providers, it is apparent, have the requisite information and data of external comparables to enable comparability analysis of the controlled and adjustment to obtain reliable results under TNM Method. This method also