M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

section 14A should be restricted to Rs.25,68,400/- being exempt income. In course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that it is a mistake. But in view of this that the Computation of Income is not filed before us and the assessee has earned in the present year Rs.58

M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

section 14A should be restricted to Rs.25,68,400/- being exempt income. In course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that it is a mistake. But in view of this that the Computation of Income is not filed before us and the assessee has earned in the present year Rs.58

ASST.C.I.T, BANGALORE vs. M/S IMPERIAL HEALTH RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and both the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

35D of the I T Act. 3. In A. Y. 2011 – 12, the revenue has only two grievances. The first grievance is regarding restricting the disallowance to Rs. 5,57,481/- as against disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 13,93,704/- out of total expenses claimed by the assessee of Rs. 69,68,523/- in respect

M/S IMPERIAL HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and both the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

35D of the I T Act. 3. In A. Y. 2011 – 12, the revenue has only two grievances. The first grievance is regarding restricting the disallowance to Rs. 5,57,481/- as against disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 13,93,704/- out of total expenses claimed by the assessee of Rs. 69,68,523/- in respect

M/S IMPERIAL HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and both the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

35D of the I T Act. 3. In A. Y. 2011 – 12, the revenue has only two grievances. The first grievance is regarding restricting the disallowance to Rs. 5,57,481/- as against disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 13,93,704/- out of total expenses claimed by the assessee of Rs. 69,68,523/- in respect

ASST.C.I.T, BANGALORE vs. M/S IMPERIAL HEALTH RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and both the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

35D of the I T Act. 3. In A. Y. 2011 – 12, the revenue has only two grievances. The first grievance is regarding restricting the disallowance to Rs. 5,57,481/- as against disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 13,93,704/- out of total expenses claimed by the assessee of Rs. 69,68,523/- in respect

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

68. The above submissions proceed purely on surmises and conjectures and if accepted as such will lead to sending the tax authorities themselves on a wild-goose chase of what can at best be described as a 'mirage'. First of all, there has to be a clear statutory mandate for such an exercise. The Court is unable to find

BOSCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

section alone and not under any other provisions. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the appellant’s claim for amortization of trademarks amounting to Rs.25,23,333/- and allowed depreciation of Rs.6,30,834/- resulting in a net addition of the difference of Rs.18,92,500/- 13.1.1. Vide written submissions filed on 28-03-2011, the appellant merely stated that

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. 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

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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. THE HUTTI GOLD MINES COMPANY LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

SECTION 37(1), By Circular No. 16D of 1965, dt. 21st June, 1965, instructions were issued that in view of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gotan Lime Syndicate (1947) 15 ITR 533 (Raj) : TC 17R.203 the payment of dead rent or royalty in respect of a lease under the Mineral Concession Rules