M/S.METROPOLITAN MEDIA COMPANY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

142(1) of the act were issued. In compliance the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee is engaged in business of printing and publication of newspaper, and has entered into an Agreement with Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. (BCCL) for selling and utilizing advertisement space

M/S UDBHAV CONSTRUCTIONS,UDUPI vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing officer, whichever

MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18\nbearing no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019-20/1017802947(1) dated 06.09.2019\nRe: Mahesh Reddy\n====\nPAN: AFTPR0449A\n==\nWith reference to the above and in continuation of our submissions dated 11.09.2019, we have hereby submit the following details:\nPoint no. 1 of the notice u/s 142(1):: Note On Professional Activities

MAHESH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18\nbearing no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019-20/1017802947(1) dated 06.09.2019\nRe: Mahesh Reddy\n====\nPAN: AFTPR0449A\n====\nWith reference to the above and in continuation of our submissions dated 11.09.2019, we have hereby submit the following details:\nPoint no. 1 of the notice u/s 142(1):: Note On Professional Activities

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.11.2021 to furnish the details regarding nature of business carried out during the yea,. the details of parties to whom advance had been given and business purpose of the same details of parties to whom interest had been paid with TDS

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

142 (1) during Page 9 of 17 the course of the original assessment has been placed at Annexure D. (vi) Further, as regards the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act for AY 2014-15, it may be noted that the TPO has proposed adjustments to the ALP only on account of comparability

M H SUDHARSHAN REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri M H Sudharshan Reddy, 20, 1St H Cross, 8Th Main, S S Layout, Shardha Colony, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore-560 079 ….Appellant. Pan Alips 3131M Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(2)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri R. Chandrashekar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Jcit (D.R.)

TDS was placed on record in Form no3CD. At this stage, we consider it appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 147 of the Act r.w.Explanation 1 which is read as under : “ 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject

PRAVESH KOTHARI L/H OF SOHANRAJ KHIMRAJ KOTHARI ,HUBLI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3, HUBLI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

TDS under section 194J. 2.4 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance of Rs. 48,000 should be deleted in entirety. 2.5Without prejudice, the disallowance, if any, should be restricted to 30% of the impugned payment. 3.Addition of HUF income:- The learned assessing officer has erred in making an addition

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

section 142(1) of the Act to furnish the details regarding nature of business carried out during the year, details of bank accounts, name / addressand PAN of the directors and partners, copy of statement of incomee .Further notice dated 18.10.2021 was issued asking to file the details ITA Nos.1656 to 1658/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 32 of parties to whom advance

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

section 142(1) of the Act to furnish the details regarding nature of business carried out during the year. The details of parties to whom advance had been given and business purpose of the same details of parties to whom interest had been paid with TDS

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

section 142(1) of the Act to furnish the details regarding nature of business carried out during the year. The details of parties to whom advance had been given and business purpose of the same details of parties to whom interest had been paid with TDS

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

section 142(1) of the Act to furnish the details regarding nature of business carried out during the year. The details of parties to whom advance had been given and business purpose of the same details of parties to whom interest had been paid with TDS

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 16-17 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 16-17 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 16-17 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 16-17 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because

ARJUN KESHAVA MURTHY PERIKAL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

TDS deduction and remittance. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments was deleted due to lack of proper verification, opportunity, and examination of exceptions.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "40(a)(ia)", "40A(3)", "37(1)", "194J", "142

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

section 142(1) and in response thereto, assessee filed areply stating therein that assessee company was offering the income to tax only on the net amount of collection charges/cash discount which was not acceptable to the AO. According to the AO, the company should have offered the entire passenger service fees collected to tax and thereafter should have debitedthe expenditure

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

section 142(1) and in response thereto, assessee filed areply stating therein that assessee company was offering the income to tax only on the net amount of collection charges/cash discount which was not acceptable to the AO. According to the AO, the company should have offered the entire passenger service fees collected to tax and thereafter should have debitedthe expenditure