MAKINO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

forward business loss at Rs.64,34,368 and considered the same for determining the ‘book profits’ u/s.115JB of the Act. However, in the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer has only considered the business loss of Rs.1,25,979, which is the carry

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MAKINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

forward business loss at Rs.64,34,368 and considered the same for determining the ‘book profits’ u/s.115JB of the Act. However, in the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer has only considered the business loss of Rs.1,25,979, which is the carry

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

carry forward losses vide para 10, which reads as under:- “10. I have considered the facts and submissions of appellant and also the reasons given by the A.O. It is undisputed fact that the ITR-V was filed by the appellant beyond the period of l5 days from the date of electronically filing the return of income. Thus, the appellant

HYAGREEVA HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD) CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit (Osd), No.10/6, Lavelle Road, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 001. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaach 7551 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Akshita, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ramanathan, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

losses amounting to Rs.22,43,078/- carried forward from the Assessment Year 2010-11, thereby further enhancing the income assessed during the reassessment

SKF TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

carry forward loss and disallowance of group information technology (IT) expenditure twice, appearing in the appeals for A. Ys. 2007-08, the other grounds are common for both the years. 03. Common grounds are dealt with first. Vide its ground I assessee assails the TP adjustment of Rs.1,13,68,945/- for A. Y. 2006-07 and Rs.91

GOPALIYENGAR MADABUSHI MURALIDHAR, ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

carry forward of losses, the learned A.R. vehemently submitted that the denial of losses without verification/ examination to the tune of Rs. 29,34,388/- is erroneous and bad in law. 7. The learned D.R., on the other hand, submitted that during the course of scrutiny proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act the final notice

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

carried forward. ITA Nos.53/Bang/2023 Sri Bankapura Channabasappa Umapathi, Devangere Page 5 of 8 4.2 The AO noted that in the return of income filed originally on 27.11.2014, the assessee had not claimed any business loss or short- term capital loss. The claim made by the assessee in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act. The AO observed that

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

carried forward. ITA Nos.53/Bang/2023 Sri Bankapura Channabasappa Umapathi, Devangere Page 5 of 8 4.2 The AO noted that in the return of income filed originally on 27.11.2014, the assessee had not claimed any business loss or short- term capital loss. The claim made by the assessee in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act. The AO observed that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NOUS INFO SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaramani.T.A No.63/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Nous Info Systems P. Ltd, No.1, 1St Main, 1St Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 004 .. Respondent Pan : Aaacn4584B Assessee By : Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vijaykumar N, Addl. Cit Heard On : 14.09.2016 Pronounced On : 11 .11.2016 O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman:

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer ('AO') made, inter alia, the following adjustments: • Deduction under section 10A at Rs.3,590,789/- has been considered based on original return of income, instead of the claim made at Rs.3,993,274/- as per revised return of income. • Carry forward of business losses

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

loss on forward exchange contract amounting to Rs. 15,58,03,235/-. 14. The authorities below erred in relying on material and statements without furnishing the same to the assessee before passing the assessment order. 15. The authorities below erred in relying on statements without providing opportunity to cross examine. 16. That the approval granted u/s153D

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

losses and absorbed depreciation are allowed to be carried forward under certain conditions. The expert Group, in the draft Income-Otax Bill, has recognized the need to encourage business reorganizations when they are in consonance with the objective of economic development and are not merely device to secure tax advantage." 10.3. Thus the bill proposes to allow tax benefits

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

losses and absorbed depreciation are allowed to be carried forward under certain conditions. The expert Group, in the draft Income-Otax Bill, has recognized the need to encourage business reorganizations when they are in consonance with the objective of economic development and are not merely device to secure tax advantage." 10.3. Thus the bill proposes to allow tax benefits

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

losses and absorbed depreciation are allowed to be carried forward under certain conditions. The expert Group, in the draft Income-Otax Bill, has recognized the need to encourage business reorganizations when they are in consonance with the objective of economic development and are not merely device to secure tax advantage." 10.3. Thus the bill proposes to allow tax benefits

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

losses and absorbed depreciation are allowed to be carried forward under certain conditions. The expert Group, in the draft Income-Otax Bill, has recognized the need to encourage business reorganizations when they are in consonance with the objective of economic development and are not merely device to secure tax advantage." 10.3. Thus the bill proposes to allow tax benefits

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

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

forward business loss of Rs. 15,27,74,965/-. The same may be given to the assessee. On the issue of approval u/s 153D the assessee relies on the submissions given supra for AY 2005-06. The grounds on interest u/s 234A/B/C are consequential in nature.” 27.2 Department’s Submissions. (ITA No.1113/Bang/2015 A.Y. 2011- 12) “ CASH PAYMENTS MADE

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

reassessment proceedings were thus infructuous and invalid. The assessee succeeds for this short reason alone. In any case, the reasons recorded while reopening the ITA Nos.1617 and 1618/Bang/2024 Page 30 of 45 assessment are disapproved, on merits, by the CIT(A) and those findings remain unchallenged and controverted. In this view of the matter, we also see no need

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S APOTEX PHARMACHEM INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

reassessing the incomes of the earlier years. It is also observed that the assessee has claimed the deduction before setting off the brought forward losses. This is incorrect as per the judgments in the cases of Sword Global (I) Pvt Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, Chennai) 306 ITR (AT) 286, ACIT Vs. Jewellery Solutions International (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Mumbai

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

carried forward and interest levied thereon be deleted.” Page 4 of 52 M/s. The Hamlet, Bangalore 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 Assessee is a firm doing its business of real estate and infrastructure development. For the year under consideration, it filed its return of income on 30.07.2012 declaring short term capital loss of Rs.1