SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

price absolutely without any basis and had arrived at an imaginary figure without any basis and therefore the impugned orders is liable to be set aside on this ground also. (7) The learned respondent also seriously erred in not considering the various statutory documents like granting of Khata on the property, releasing the original Joint Development Agreement by the Registering

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, or any other bank being a bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (iii) "public financial institution" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iv) "State financial corporation" means a financial corporation established under section

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

transfer of immovable property is not effective or complete under the general law.”(emphasis supplied) 3.69 He relied on the following case laws:- (a) In respect of that the document should be understood from the point of view of parties concerned. (i) Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. UOI [(2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC)] (ii) Ishikawajma Harima Heavy Industries Limited v

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

v Ltg\. (1995) 124 CTR (Bom) 117 : (1995) 214 ITR 489 (Bom) : TC 41R.557 / disapproved; CIT vs. Shaw Wallace & Co. (1932) 59 IA 206~(PC) and Pondicherry -Railway Company Ltd. vs. CIT AIR 1931 PC 165 relied on. (Paras 10 & 12)” M/s. RMZ Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore Page 46 of 79 (iii) Decision of the Chandigarh Tribunal in the case

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

36(1)(viia). At the same time, alternative claim of the assessee that it is to be allowed u/s 37(1), in our view, is acceptable. On a perusal of the assessment order and the facts and materials available on record, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

36(1)(viia). At the same time, alternative claim of the assessee that it is to be allowed u/s 37(1), in our view, is acceptable. On a perusal of the assessment order and the facts and materials available on record, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

36(1)(viia). At the same time, alternative claim of the assessee that it is to be allowed u/s 37(1), in our view, is acceptable. On a perusal of the assessment order and the facts and materials available on record, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department

J.C.I.T vs. M/S CANARA BANK,

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

36(1)(viia). At the same time, alternative claim of the assessee that it is to be allowed u/s 37(1), in our view, is acceptable. On a perusal of the assessment order and the facts and materials available on record, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

36(1)(viia). At the same time, alternative claim of the assessee that it is to be allowed u/s 37(1), in our view, is acceptable. On a perusal of the assessment order and the facts and materials available on record, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department

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

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

v. CBDT [2007] 288 ITR 52 (Delhi) (albeit considering the law prior to the 2007 amendment to the Act), concurred with this view (pages 69 and 74 of 288 ITR) : "a reading of section 92C and section 92CA does not indicate that the Assessing Officer is required to form a prior considered opinion after considering all the available materials even

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

36,13\n2\n103,01,34,0\n33\n309,04,02,09\n9\n2016\n309,04,02,09\n3035,54,78,4\n3344,58,80,5\n836,14,70,1\n2508,44,10,4\n-17\n9\n80\n79\n45\n34\n2017\n2508,44,10,4\n2508,44,10,4\n627,11,02,6\n1881

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

36(1)(viia) of the Act is incorrect and therefore delete the disallowance made there under. Consequently, ground NO.3 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 8. Ground No.4 (4.1 to 4.5) – Depreciation on Investments. 8.1 In these grounds (supra), Revenue assails the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

transfer pricing proceedings unsustainable in law. (a) CIT v. Kodak India (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay High Court). (b) CIT v. Merck Ltd. (2016) 73 taxmann.com 23 (Bombay High Court). 9.4 The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the TPO and the DRP. 9.5 We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record