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

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:

TDS') to INR 18,74,81,464 vis-a-vis INR 19,36.50,171 claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

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

145(3) of the Act are applicable. In such circumstances, the question is as to whether the AO had power to go beyond the book results. In our view, the AO was not empowered under the Act to do so. 52. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. (supra), when

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

3 to section foreign entities had reasonable cause to 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld not offer the receipts to tax in the return under section 139 of the Act basis: - (Page 10-11 of the CIT(A)’s order) IBM Corp’s assessment order for AY 2011-12 which had attained finality - Plethora of judicial precedents

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

3 to section foreign entities had reasonable cause to 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld not offer the receipts to tax in the return under section 139 of the Act basis: - (Page 10-11 of the CIT(A)’s order) IBM Corp’s assessment order for AY 2011-12 which had attained finality - Plethora of judicial precedents

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

3 to section foreign entities had reasonable cause to 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld not offer the receipts to tax in the return under section 139 of the Act basis: - (Page 10-11 of the CIT(A)’s order) IBM Corp’s assessment order for AY 2011-12 which had attained finality - Plethora of judicial precedents

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

3 to section foreign entities had reasonable cause to 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld not offer the receipts to tax in the return under section 139 of the Act basis: - (Page 10-11 of the CIT(A)’s order) IBM Corp’s assessment order for AY 2011-12 which had attained finality - Plethora of judicial precedents

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

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,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

3 of 38 13.The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that your Appellant following the mercantile system of accounting had offered the income to tax in the year under appeal and thus, was rightfully eligible to claim the TDS credit available on the same 14.The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in levying & confirming interest under section 234A

KARTIKEYAS MANGANESE & IRON ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,BELLARY vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

145(3) of the Act, renders the additions unsustainable. Based solely on the seized material A/BSG/01 & A/BSG/02 the income in the form of alleged cash sales has been calculated at page 53 of the assessment order extracted as under: ‘’Total cash receipts as per seized materials From the above discussion, it is clear that M/s. KMIORE and M/s. AKG have

DY.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS credit 2011-12 22 verification and consideration in accordance with law. 2007-08 32 2008-09 38 Interest levied under section Consequential in 2009-10 38 234B and 234D nature. 2010-11 20 2011-12 31 We have already tabulated hereinabove the issues that stands covered by the observations of the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal

INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS credit 2011-12 22 verification and consideration in accordance with law. 2007-08 32 2008-09 38 Interest levied under section Consequential in 2009-10 38 234B and 234D nature. 2010-11 20 2011-12 31 We have already tabulated hereinabove the issues that stands covered by the observations of the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS credit 2011-12 22 verification and consideration in accordance with law. 2007-08 32 2008-09 38 Interest levied under section Consequential in 2009-10 38 234B and 234D nature. 2010-11 20 2011-12 31 We have already tabulated hereinabove the issues that stands covered by the observations of the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal