ARIBA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS, or self-assessment tax discrepancies. 25.1 The taxpayer is notified of any adjustments via an intimation under section 143

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 23 are now well-settled and if the value returned is not in accordance with such principles, it is open to the assessee to contend that the value as may be determined upon correct application of the law should form the basis of assessment. The revenue authorities, in our view, cannot be heard to say that merely because

MICROLAND LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

section and is not as per law requires to be cancelled. 8. The Learned authorities below erred in considering total income at Rs. 48,53,50,572/- ( which is as per the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act) as against Rs. 47,51,37,520/- as per the revised return. 9. The Learned authorities below erred

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS credit should follow the income, and procedural objections like Form 26AS mismatch should not deny substantive entitlement, especially when the income is offered to tax.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 70", "Section 80G", "Section 143

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member It(Tp)A No.2235(Bang)/2016 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S The Himalaya Drug Company, Makali, Tumkur Road, Bangalore-562 162 Pan No.Aadft3025B Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Ms Neera Malhotra, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-10-2019 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai:

143 has mandatorily application in a case where the Assessing Officer in repudiation of return filed in response to notice under section 148 which proceeds to make an enquiry. Hon’ble Court also analysed application of section 292 BB that came into effect from 01/04/08. It has been held by Hon’ble Court that scope of sec.292BB is to make

CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

143(3) r.w.s. 144C(14) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act] on the following grounds: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant.) respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 143(1) disallowed the credit of TDS of Rs. Rs. 2,59,879/- on account of OLTAS Credit Mismatch

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 115JB NIL 1 / 107 7. Prepaid taxes (comprising of TDS) 5,98,101 1 / 107 8. Tax Refund claimed in the return of income 5,98,101 1 / 107 Date of processing of return vide intimation 118 9. April 28, 2020 order u/s. 143

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 115JB NIL 1 / 107 7. Prepaid taxes (comprising of TDS) 5,98,101 1 / 107 8. Tax Refund claimed in the return of income 5,98,101 1 / 107 Date of processing of return vide intimation 118 9. April 28, 2020 order u/s. 143

BANGALORE TRUF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') in the manner passed by him and the Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-1 (`CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the said order. The said order being bad in law is liable to be quashed. 2. Grounds relating to disallowance under section40(a)(ia) 2.1. The learned

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

TDS credits not accounted and assessed the total income of Rs.71,55,32,440/- and passed order under Section 143

SOLUTIONS INFINI TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2023-24

section 143(1) of the Act resulted in short grant of TDS credit amounting to Rs. 2,34,61,907.00 only

M/S. SEIKO WATCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Seiko Watch India Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, #874, Ground Floor Temple Vista, Circle – 6(1)(1), Shri Krishna Temple Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Indiranagar I Stage, Bengaluru – 560 038. Pan : Aakcs 6484 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nithin Surana, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2023

section 143(3) accepting the payment of sales incentives without deduction of TDS was not Page 3 of 8 prejudicial

M/S GOWRI INFRAENGINEERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Gowri Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 18, 5Th Cross, Commissioner Of 2Nd Stage, 14Th Block, Income Tax, Nagarabhavi, Central Circle – 2(4), Bengaluru – 560 072. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aadcg9044N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hemanth Pai, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit -Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 15.07.2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) — 11, Bengaluru ("Cit(A)") Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice & Probabilities On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Himself Liable To Be Assessed At Rs. 34,50,31,775/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 5,01,44,290/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

143(3) on 17.5.2021 determining the income at Rs.34,50,31,775/-. Page 6 of 10 The variation in the returned income and the assessed income is on account of the following: Sl.No. Particulars Amount Addition on account of uncertified bills to be treated A 29,39,56,585=00 as turnover on account of the alleged revenue recognition Addition

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 and disallowed the claim and assessed total income of Rs.70,71,404/- and passed order under Section 143(3) r.w.s

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS only when the employee’s income is taxable. Many new employees were earning below the taxable limit. Hence, PAN was not required for them. The assessee could not be asked to obtain PAN for employees whose salaries were not taxable. Hence, the assessee was fully compliant with the law. 6.7 The assessee also submits that section 139A(5E), read