INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

80-IA(1) after setting-off notionally brought forward losses of eligible business of earlier years and that the correct profit eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act was Rs.6,28,28,951. Since the CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance of section 80IA, he rejected this claim stating the same to be academic

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

80-IA(1) after setting-off notionally brought forward losses of eligible business of earlier years and that the correct profit eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act was Rs.6,28,28,951. Since the CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance of section 80IA, he rejected this claim stating the same to be academic

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

80-IA(1) after setting-off notionally brought forward losses of eligible business of earlier years and that the correct profit eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act was Rs.6,28,28,951. Since the CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance of section 80IA, he rejected this claim stating the same to be academic

M/S. ALLSTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

80-H, 80HH, 80HHC etc, we would deal with these provisions when relevant case laws are discussed by us. 11. As against the Chapter VI-A relating to Deductions from Gross Total Income as provided in Chapter VI-A of the Act, Section 10-A and 10-B contained in Chapter III of the Act provide for exemptions

MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

68 will be applicable only when any amount is found credited in the books of an assessee. On the other hand if the undisclosed income was found to be from some unknown source or the amount represents some concealed income which is not credited in his books then the section will not be applicable." ii. In case of Mehul

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

80,000/- under section 37 of the Act. 2.5 Further, from the details furnished, the Ld.AO observed that assessee debited ₹ 68

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

80,81,400 /- to lenders through Banking\nChannels by AO, which was claimed in Return of Income filed in\nresponse to notice u/s.148.\n11. The CIT (A) and The A.O. have failed to send letters for confirmation\nof loans taken from Lenders and also interest paid to them by invoking\nprovisions of section 133(6), as all the lenders

AJIT VASANT PAI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

80,804 includes an amount of Rs. 68,14,32,706 which is under dispute before the Australian Tax Authorities. As per section

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

80,81,400 /- to lenders through Banking Channels by AO, which was claimed in Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s.148. 11. The CIT (A) and The A.O. have failed to send letters for confirmation of loans taken from Lenders and also interest paid to them by invoking provisions of section 133(6), as all the lenders

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

80,81,400 /- to lenders through Banking\nChannels by AO, which was claimed in Return of Income filed in\nresponse to notice u/s.148.\n\n11. The CIT (A) and The A.O. have failed to send letters for confirmation\nof loans taken from Lenders and also interest paid to them by invoking\nprovisions of section

MINORITY CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, BAGALKOT,BAGALKOT vs. ITO W(1), BAGALKOT, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

80 P(4) of the Act. Based on such principle analyzed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and respectfully following the view taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT & Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society reported in (2017) 392 ITR 74 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank Of India

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

section 10B of the Income tax Act amounting to Rs.18,95,68,278/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. On going through the details furnished, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,80

ASST.C.I.T., RAICHUR vs. M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,, RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

section 10B of the Income tax Act amounting to Rs.18,95,68,278/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. On going through the details furnished, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,80

M/S SHILPA MEDICARE LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RAICHUR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

section 10B of the Income tax Act amounting to Rs.18,95,68,278/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. On going through the details furnished, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,80

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (A) BANGALORE-6, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

68,26,037/- as bad debts written off. The AO did not dispute the fact that the amounts that were claimed as bad debts were written off had been booked as sales and maintenance charges for the Financial Year 2009-10 (Assessment Year 2010-11). He noticed that some of the outstandings have been written off as bad debts