DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

sections": [ "28", "37", "133(6)", "194C", "195", "145(3)", "40(a)(i)" ], "issues": "Whether the business loss claimed in the first year of operation is a genuine business expenditure and deductible. Whether ESOP expenses claimed are allowable as a deduction and if TDS

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

145(3)\nof the Act are applicable. In such circumstances, the question is as to whether\nthe AO had power to go beyond the book results. In our view, the AO was not\nempowered under the Act to do so.\n52. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta\nDiscount Co. (supra), when

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

145(3)\nof the Act are applicable. In such circumstances, the question is as to whether\nthe AO had power to go beyond the book results. In our view, the AO was not\nempowered under the Act to do so.\n52. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta\nDiscount Co. (supra), when

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

145(3)\nof the Act are applicable. In such circumstances, the question is as to whether\nthe AO had power to go beyond the book results. In our view, the AO was not\nempowered under the Act to do so.\n\n52. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta\nDiscount Co. (supra), when

BSR INFRATECH INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 145 of the Act, the assessee was required to follow the same method of accounting as followed in the earlier years unless there was some bonafide reason. The assessee could not have followed hybrid method for recognition of its income. • The assessee had claimed full credit of tax deducted at source (TDS

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

145 ITD 491 and in case of Fidelity\nInvestment Trust reported in 36 SOT 22, wherein it was held that short\nterm capital loss arising from STT-paid transactions is allowable to be set\noff against other capital gains, even if taxed at different rates.\n6.5 The assessee therefore argued that it was legally entitled to set\noff the short

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

145 ITD 491 and in case of Fidelity Investment Trust reported in 36 SOT 22, wherein it was held that short term capital loss arising from STT-paid transactions is allowable to be set off against other capital gains, even if taxed at different rates. 6.5 The assessee therefore argued that it was legally entitled to set off the short

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 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

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 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

M/S BANGALORE BEVERAGES PVT LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ARD-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

145 of the Act. The assessee has made one more contention before us that in assessment year 2013- 14, the AO invoked the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, which is applicable only to the payment and not to the receipts. According to the assessee, the AO has recorded in para 4.2 of his order

BANGALORE BEVERAGES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

145 of the Act. The assessee has made one more contention before us that in assessment year 2013- 14, the AO invoked the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, which is applicable only to the payment and not to the receipts. According to the assessee, the AO has recorded in para 4.2 of his order

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PVT LTD ,BELLARY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , HOSPET

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

TDS is made, has accrued to the assessee in the subject assessment year and the same cannot be deferred. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3.4. The learned CIT(A) has referred to section .2(24), section 2(45), section 4 & section 5 of the Act and upheld the addition on the ground that: (a). Placing of prohibitory orders over

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

TDS is made, has accrued to the assessee in the subject assessment year and the same cannot be deferred. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3.4. The learned CIT(A) has referred to section .2(24), section 2(45), section 4 & section 5 of the Act and upheld the addition on the ground that: (a). Placing of prohibitory orders over

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. 11. The ld. Sr. Advocate, Shri Ajay Vohra, submitted a copy of the decision of the coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2017- 18 in ITA No.1115 & 1141/Bang/2022 dated 9.3.2023 at 150 taxmann.com 272. He submitted that the coordinate Bench has held that ESOP scheme cross-charge expenses would be allowable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. 11. The ld. Sr. Advocate, Shri Ajay Vohra, submitted a copy of the decision of the coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2017- 18 in ITA No.1115 & 1141/Bang/2022 dated 9.3.2023 at 150 taxmann.com 272. He submitted that the coordinate Bench has held that ESOP scheme cross-charge expenses would be allowable

ASHRAF NAFISA ALTHAF,MOODUBIDRI MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

TDS certificate furnished by the assessee and also the credit appearing in the assessee’s bank account. Therefore, to arrive at the professional income, the service tax realized should have been included in the gross receipts unless paid to Government exchequer within the due date of filing of return. Since service tax realised is included in the total income