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

TDS on such interest payment in\nthe light of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act but there is no compliance\nof the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the assessee since on this issue,\nthe assessee was unable to substantiate the genuineness of expenditure incurred\nfor business purposes as well

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

TDS on such interest payment in\nthe light of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act but there is no compliance\nof the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the assessee since on this issue,\nthe assessee was unable to substantiate the genuineness of expenditure incurred\nfor business purposes as well

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

TDS on such interest payment in the light of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act but there is no compliance of the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the assessee since on this issue, the assessee was unable to substantiate the genuineness of expenditure incurred for business purposes as well

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

133(6) of the Act. However, assessee has sought its exclusion on grounds of significantly higher turnover, abnormal margins, presence of intellectual property, diversified business, brand value and turnover. He placed reliance upon the decision of ICC India (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT (supra).. On the contrary, Ld.DR submitted that there is no related party transaction during the year under consideration

DCIT vs. M/S ANALOG DVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,

In the result cross objection filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member It(Tp)A No.619(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Bangalore Appellant Vs M/S Analog Devices India Pvt. Ltd., Rmz Infinity No.3, Level-6, Tower-D, Old Maras Road, Bangalore-560 016. Pan No.Aabca1873F Respondent & C.O.No.155(B)/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.619(B)/2013 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) (By Assessee) Appellant By : Shri K.N. Dhandpani, Addl.Cit Revenue By : Shri Darpan Kirpalani, Ca

133(6) should be IT(TP)A No619(B)/2013 & CO No.155(B)/2015 19 provided to assessee and proper opportunity as per law must be granted. Ld.TPO shall then carry out FAR analysis as per law. Accordingly this ground raised by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Ground No.12-14 These grounds has been raised by revenue, in respect

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE 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

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

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE 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

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

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE 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

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

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

TAVANT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

TDS is required to be deducted in respect of these amounts of expenditure therefore it is not clear how the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are applicable on this amount. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to properly examine the relevant provisions of Chapter XVII qua these payments on account of repairs and maintenance and then decide the issue

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,2016-17 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

133(6) of the Act. 1.10. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in law and facts in the methodology applied for computing Related Party Transactions ("RPT") filter. 1.11. The learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in not allowing appropriate adjustments towards working capital differential existing between the Appellant vis-a-vis independent comparable companies

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOWORTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

133(6) and verified them and the assessee also submitted valuation reports. The CIT(A) further stated that the AO having verified the relevant documents did not find any consideration received over and above the amount disclosed by the assessee and in such a case CIT Vs. Shivakami Co Pt Ltd 159 ITR 71 is applicable. He also stated relying

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS was deducted, the AO invoked section 40(a)(i) of the Act and held that the expenditure was liable for disallowance. 18.5 Although the expenditure was already disallowed on merits under section 37, the AO noted that the non-deduction of tax also independently triggered disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, no double addition

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

6) of section 94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)& TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

6) of section 94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

6) of section 94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

6) of section 94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

section 133(6) of the Act in which the buyer of the property furnished the information and the transactions are genuine with banking channels and TDS

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI 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

133(6) of the IT Act 7.3 NA NA 2014-15 NA NA before treating the Appellant as assessee-in-default under 2015-16 6.3 NA 6.3 NA 6.3 section 201(1) of the IT Act Page 17 of 74 ITA No.507 to 566 /Bang/2020 As regards TDS