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

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

RANGSONS SCHUSTER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANDYA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1)& TPS , MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Rangsons Schuster Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.9, Hebbal Ii Nd Phase Viadb Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Industrial Area, Survey No.36, Belagolahobli, Mysore. Srirangapatna, H.O. Shrirangapattana, Mandya– 571 438,Karnataka. Pan : Aafcr 4493 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

TDS as per the provision made under section 195 of the Act. Accordingly, various notices were issued to the assessee but there was no response. Accordingly, show cause notice was also issued to the Page 2 of 7 assessee but there was no response. Final show cause notice also issue for which there was no reply from assessee’s side

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

144B of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before the FAA, assessee had contended that reopening of assessment is bad in law since there has been full and true disclosure by the assessee in the return of income. Further, it was contended that since the reassessment notice has been issued beyond four years from

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

144B of the Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Grounds relating to notice issued under section 148 and proceedings under section 147 2.1. The learned Assessing officer has erred in not appreciating that an assessment under section 143(3) has been made for the relevant assessment year. The learned assessing officer has erred in reassessing

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

144B of the Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Grounds relating to notice issued under section 148 and proceedings under section 147 2.1. The learned Assessing officer has erred in not appreciating that an assessment under section 143(3) has been made for the relevant assessment year. The learned assessing officer has erred in reassessing

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

144B of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ('the Act'), by the National e-Assessment Centre ('the NeAC'), be struck down as invalid, as the order is bad in law and on facts. 1.2. The Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('ORP') has erred in completing the proceedings in undue haste and in violation of the principles of natural justice

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

144B of the Act. iv.Assessment Year 2018-19 – Final Order of Assessment dated 30.06.2022 passed by ACIT, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. 2. Since common issues arise for consideration in all these appeals, they were heard together and we deem it convenient to pass consolidated order. 3. The factual background

VISHNU VARDHANA RAM YARA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS under sections 192A and 194B of the Act have been deducted and assessee was asked to furnish various details but the assessee has not filed any detailed response to the notices in this regard. Therefore, entire amount of salary received amounting to R.50,82,632/- was considered as income and it remained unexplained by the assessee. Accordingly

SRI. SANDEEP NARAYAN GOWDA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

144B without allowing the appellant to file the details on 24.3.2022 by disabling or locking the submit response option in the efiling portal. 5. The NFAC erred in not appreciating that the appellant had filed an adjournment request for filing the details on or before 24.3.2022 for medical reasons of the authorised representative. 6. On facts and circumstances

BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT AND DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

TDS u/s 195 of the Act instead of 192 of the Act. Therefore, the ld. AO made an addition of Rs.4,45,16,242/- by disallowing the payments made to secondment employees, invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. IT(TP)A No.1473/Bang/2024 M/s. Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

GAURAV RAJAN GHOOTA,G-4, SAI KUTEER APARTMENTS, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3)(2), HMT BUILDING BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by making a best judgment assessment. The Assessing Officer brought to tax the entire Page 2 of 4 gross salary and interest income and disallowed deductions and exemptions claimed in Form 16 on the ground that no documentary evidence was furnished during assessment proceedings. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before

XCHANGING SOLUTIONS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") under Section 144C(5) the Act inter-alia on the following grounds which are without prejudice to each other: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: General grounds 1.The impugned order and directions

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowances / additions made

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowances / additions made

NEETA CHAUDHARY,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1)(3), BENGALURU

In the result ground no.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,436,423/–. 8. The assessee aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A stating that she is a female homemaker not having any business or profession or any other source of income. Her husband and along with her purchased the residential apartment

SUVILAS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

144B was (i) erroneous and (ii) prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 4. The PCIT erred in proceeding to cancel the assessment and direct a fresh inquiry without recording any finding on the merits, contrary to the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Apex Court which holds that a mere difference of opinion does not confer jurisdiction under section

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

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

TDS 3. 725/Bang/2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Ground Nos.1 and 2: 23,14,000/- 2017-18 25/1071843769(1) Disallowance of dated 03.01.2025 expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) Ground Nos.3 and 4: 75,58,30,838/- Disallowance of interest on reserve fund 4. 726/Bang/2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Ground Nos.1 and 2: 42,94,110/- Disallowance