MINDTECK (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 252/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17
Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.252/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mindteck India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A.M.R. Tech Park, Block 1, 3Rd Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), No.664, 23/24, Hosur Main Road, Begur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 068. Pan : Aaach 1072 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan
For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)
original grounds of appeal which reads as follows:
15. The Learned AO erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 3,59,722/- under section 28(1)(iv) is not permissible as per the Act and the same is to be quashed, for the below mentioned reasons:
15.1 The Learned ... erred in making an erroneous interpretation of the fact that the equipmet received from its customer (RDT) was a benefit/ perquisite envisaged in section 28(1)(iv) the Act without understanding the nature of the service.
15.3 The Learned AO erred in understanding the fact that the appellant has received
