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

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

234A be deleted; (IV) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; (V) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted. (VI) The appellant prays accordingly. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. Assessee filed its return of income on 03/10/11 declaring total income of Rs.21,79,790/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act requires to be waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 7. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal

WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC,USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

234A & 234B is consequential in nature and dependent on the outcome of the assessment, these grounds are also dismissed as infructuous. 4. The issue raised in Ground No. 11 pertains to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A, 271A, 271AA and 271BA of the Income Tax Act. The penalty proceedings are premature at this stage; therefore, these are dismissed

M/S. JUNIPER NETWORKS INC,USA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the ITO wherein the fact that salary expenses reimbursed by Juniper India to the Appellant had already been subjected to applicable Indian income- tax under section 192 of the Act, has been disregarded. Concluding no employer-employee relation exists between Juniper India and the deputed employees The Learned

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC.,,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

TDS and accordingly, deletion of addition made to the assessee's income in respect of sales commission under section 40(a)(i) is found to be just and proper so as to warrant IT(IT)A Nos.832 & 833/Bang/2024 Steer America Inc., Bangalore Page 35 of 37 interference. The same is, therefore, upheld. The revenue's this ground of appeal

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC., ,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

TDS and accordingly, deletion of addition made to the assessee's income in respect of sales commission under section 40(a)(i) is found to be just and proper so as to warrant IT(IT)A Nos.832 & 833/Bang/2024 Steer America Inc., Bangalore Page 35 of 37 interference. The same is, therefore, upheld. The revenue's this ground of appeal

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

TDS amounting to Rs.1,76,112 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n\n15. 2. The learned Assessing officer has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable in computing the income under section 11 to 13 as per Explanation 3 to section 11 introduced by the Finance Act 2018 w.e.f

M/S ORKLA ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

234A of the Act amounting to INR 55,418 being consequential in nature. 7. Interest under section 234B of the Act  The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act.  The learned AO has erred in fact and law by levying interest under section 234B of the Act as the Appellant is a non-resident

INDIRA RAMAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and the interest having been levied is erroneous and same is to be deleted. 8. In view of the above and on the grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned orders passed be quashed or atleast the additions as made/confirmed be deleted, levy of taxes

CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INC.,UNITED STATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

234A and section 234B of the Act. 3. Ground 3: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act. All the above

CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INC.,UNITED STATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

234A and section 234B of the Act. 3. Ground 3: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act. All the above

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

TDS credit of Rs. 15,878 should be allowed. Page 4 of 7 Addition for short term capital gains on sale of shares 12. Without prejudice, the NFAC has erred in making addition for short term capital gains on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 1,47,371. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the addition

SHREE BASAVESHWAR CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED,HUNGUND vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

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

234A, 234B 6. and section 234C in view of the fact there is no additional liability to additional tax as determined by the learned Assessing Officer. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time

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:

234A, 234B, 234C, 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes @or fringe benefits or class of cases, setting ITA.828/Bang/2014 Page - 8 forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessee) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures to be followed by other income-tax authorities in the work relating to assessment

M/S. MONARCH PLAZA COMFORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita No.1644 & 1645/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13

TDS credit not allowed as appearing in form 26 A-S. 27. Ground No.2 is in respect of computing interest under section 234A

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234A of the Act. Ground No. - - - (Return of income 6 filed within time stipulated) Interest under Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. Section 234B of the 7 7 7 7 Act. Interest under Ground No. Section 234C of the - - - 8 Act. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that pursuant to the MAP entered into between the competent authorities of India

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234A of the Act. Ground No. - - - (Return of income 6 filed within time stipulated) Interest under Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. Section 234B of the 7 7 7 7 Act. Interest under Ground No. Section 234C of the - - - 8 Act. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that pursuant to the MAP entered into between the competent authorities of India

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234A of the Act. Ground No. - - - (Return of income 6 filed within time stipulated) Interest under Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. Ground No. Section 234B of the 7 7 7 7 Act. Interest under Ground No. Section 234C of the - - - 8 Act. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that pursuant to the MAP entered into between the competent authorities of India