M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

38 the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, thirty per cent of such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid : Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

38 the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, thirty per cent of such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid : Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

38 the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, thirty per cent of such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid : Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

10(34) of the I.T.Act. The AO in the impugned assessment order has made disallowance of Rs.1,31,50,663 under section 14A of the I.T.Act by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”). The AO rejected the contention of the assessee that it had not incurred any expenditure in relation to income

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS\nof not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance\ntax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present\ncase, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption\nthat that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate\nthe capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA -BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

TDS provisions.\ne. As per the provisions of section 40, there is no\ndistinction between revenue expenditure and capital\nexpenditure, but only condition is that if certain amount is\nclaimed as deduction either by way of debiting to the P&L\naccount or by way of depreciation u/s 32 without effecting\nTDS on such payments, the same can be disallowed

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS\nof not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance\ntax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present\ncase, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption\nthat that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate\nthe capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

38 of the Income-tax Act. d. In case any deduction is claimed u/s 32 while computing income under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession', the same can also be disallowed if the assessee has violated the TDS provisions. e. As per the provisions of section 40, there is no distinction between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure, but only

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

38 of the Income-tax Act. d. In case any deduction is claimed u/s 32 while computing income under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession', the same can also be disallowed if the assessee has violated the TDS provisions. e. As per the provisions of section 40, there is no distinction between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure, but only

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

38 of the Income-tax Act. d. In case any deduction is claimed u/s 32 while computing income under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession', the same can also be disallowed if the assessee has violated the TDS provisions. e. As per the provisions of section 40, there is no distinction between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure, but only

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

38 of the Income-tax Act. d. In case any deduction is claimed u/s 32 while computing income under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession', the same can also be disallowed if the assessee has violated the TDS provisions. e. As per the provisions of section 40, there is no distinction between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure, but only

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

38 of the Income-tax Act. d. In case any deduction is claimed u/s 32 while computing income under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession', the same can also be disallowed if the assessee has violated the TDS provisions. e. As per the provisions of section 40, there is no distinction between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure, but only

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) -WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

10, which is by the employees under not allowable for the wrong head does not reasons specified in para 3, matter. 4, 5 of assessment order. In granting exemption The very fact that CBDT did under section 17 (2), there not specify the period is no specific instruction for indicates that the letter is the period for which the open

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

10, which is by the employees under not allowable for the wrong head does not reasons specified in para 3, matter. 4, 5 of assessment order. In granting exemption The very fact that CBDT did under section 17 (2), there not specify the period is no specific instruction for indicates that the letter is the period for which the open

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) -WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

10, which is by the employees under not allowable for the wrong head does not reasons specified in para 3, matter. 4, 5 of assessment order. In granting exemption The very fact that CBDT did under section 17 (2), there not specify the period is no specific instruction for indicates that the letter is the period for which the open

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

10, which is by the employees under not allowable for the wrong head does not reasons specified in para 3, matter. 4, 5 of assessment order. In granting exemption The very fact that CBDT did under section 17 (2), there not specify the period is no specific instruction for indicates that the letter is the period for which the open

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

10, which is by the employees under not allowable for the wrong head does not reasons specified in para 3, matter. 4, 5 of assessment order. In granting exemption The very fact that CBDT did under section 17 (2), there not specify the period is no specific instruction for indicates that the letter is the period for which the open