GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 of section 234B have been amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. June 1, 2015 and hence the amended provisions are not applicable for the year under consideration. In this respect relied on (a) Reliance Jute &Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) (b) J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO 119 CTR (SC) 222 (c) Sree Karpagambal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 of section 234B have been amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. June 1, 2015 and hence the amended provisions are not applicable for the year under consideration. In this respect relied on (a) Reliance Jute &Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) (b) J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO 119 CTR (SC) 222 (c) Sree Karpagambal

GMR HIGHWAYS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 of section 234B have been amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. June 1, 2015 and hence the amended provisions are not applicable for the year under consideration. In this respect relied on (a) Reliance Jute &Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) (b) J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO 119 CTR (SC) 222 (c) Sree Karpagambal

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 of section 234B have been amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. June 1, 2015 and hence the amended provisions are not applicable for the year under consideration. In this respect relied on (a) Reliance Jute &Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) (b) J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO 119 CTR (SC) 222 (c) Sree Karpagambal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 of section 234B have been amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. June 1, 2015 and hence the amended provisions are not applicable for the year under consideration. In this respect relied on (a) Reliance Jute &Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) (b) J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO 119 CTR (SC) 222 (c) Sree Karpagambal

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 of section 234B have been amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. June 1, 2015 and hence the amended provisions are not applicable for the year under consideration. In this respect relied on (a) Reliance Jute &Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) (b) J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO 119 CTR (SC) 222 (c) Sree Karpagambal

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 of section 234B have been amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. June 1, 2015 and hence the amended provisions are not applicable for the year under consideration. In this respect relied on (a) Reliance Jute &Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) (b) J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO 119 CTR (SC) 222 (c) Sree Karpagambal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 of section 234B have been amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. June 1, 2015 and hence the amended provisions are not applicable for the year under consideration. In this respect relied on (a) Reliance Jute &Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) (b) J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO 119 CTR (SC) 222 (c) Sree Karpagambal

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

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

section 234B and 234D. Prayer 61. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the DRP directions and the final assessment order passed by the learned AO be quashed or in the alternative, the aforesaid grounds and the relief prayed for there under be allowed. The appellant submits

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

234B amounting to Rs. 3,93,70,932 be deleted. c) Interest levied under section 234C amounting to Rs.22,440 be deleted. The appellant prays accordingly. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1Assessee is company engaged in the business of conducting horse races. It has been observed by Ld.AO that assessee would collect ticket money from across

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

234B is consequential in nature and dependent on the outcome of the assessment which is under appeal. Hence, this ground is also dismissed as infructuous. 4. The issue raised in Ground No. 31 pertains to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income Tax Act. As this matter is premature at this stage, it is dismissed accordingly

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

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

section 234B amounting to Rs. 3,66,41,150 be deleted. The appellant prays accordingly.” Page 5 of 25 ITA Nos. 1849 & 2248/Bang/2019 “1. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

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

section 234B amounting to Rs. 3,66,41,150 be deleted. The appellant prays accordingly.” Page 5 of 25 ITA Nos. 1849 & 2248/Bang/2019 “1. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case

MRS. SABENA PRAKASH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

234B of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.\n11. Without prejudice the learned Assessing Officer erred in law in initiating the penalty\nproceedings under the provisions of section 274 read with section 270A of the Act on the\nfacts and circumstances of the case.\n12. The Appellant craves to add, alter, delete or substitute