M/S. BIDAR NIRMITHI KENDRA,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BIDAR

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 264 of the Act has set aside the assessment to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law and provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Assessing Officer posted the case for hearing and provided opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee has filed the Return

M/S. BIDAR NIRMITHI KENDRA,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BIDAR

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 264 of the Act has set aside the assessment to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law and provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Assessing Officer posted the case for hearing and provided opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee has filed the Return

M/S BIDAR NIRMITHI KENDRA ,BIDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , BIDAR

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 264 of the Act has set aside the assessment to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law and provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Assessing Officer posted the case for hearing and provided opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee has filed the Return

DCIT vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK,

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be ITA Nos.1700 to 1704/Bang/2013 Syndicate Bank Page 17 of 23 increased or reduced accordingly, and in a case where

M H SUDHARSHAN REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri M H Sudharshan Reddy, 20, 1St H Cross, 8Th Main, S S Layout, Shardha Colony, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore-560 079 ….Appellant. Pan Alips 3131M Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(2)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri R. Chandrashekar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Jcit (D.R.)

264/- the payments does not exceed the statutory limit. Further, the Chartered Accountant has qualified that the assessee has not complied the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of deduction of tax at source in Form no3CD clause 27(a). Whereas in respect of Hire charges, the contentions of the assessee are that the payments are towards JCB hire charges paid

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

264 of the Act, the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) to sub section 1 of section 275 of the Act would not be attracted. It is contended by the learned AR that in these factual circumstances, it is the provisions of clause (c) of subsection 1 of section 275 that is applicable in the case on hand. Therefore

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

264 of the Act, the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) to sub section 1 of section 275 of the Act would not be attracted. It is contended by the learned AR that in these factual circumstances, it is the provisions of clause (c) of subsection 1 of section 275 that is applicable in the case on hand. Therefore

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

264 of the Act, the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) to sub section 1 of section 275 of the Act would not be attracted. It is contended by the learned AR that in these factual circumstances, it is the provisions of clause (c) of subsection 1 of section 275 that is applicable in the case on hand. Therefore

M/S. CORPORATE LEISURE & PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

TDS under relevant provisions vi) such as Sect 192 or Sect 192C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. vii) It is noticed that the assessee has not accounted for the cash payments of Rs. 1.90 crores made to Sri. Zaffer Babu even though it has maintained regular books of accounts. viii) It is seen from the assessee's reply that

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

264] [Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f.\n1.6.2003).], after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of\nrevision is passed;\n(c)in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

264] [Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f.\n1.6.2003).], after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of\nrevision is passed;\n(c)in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

264] [Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f.\n1.6.2003).], after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of\nrevision is passed;\n(c)in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

264, following the above decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provisions namely section 10B(i), 10B(5), 10B(6)(ii), and section

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

264] [Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f. 1.6.2003).], after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c)in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

264] [Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f. 1.6.2003).], after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c)in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been

M/S CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS. The assessee also places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagran Prakashan Limited vs DCIT 345 ITR 288 (Index of Decisions--H pages 110 to 150) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Civil 9861/2013 dt.05.05.2014 (Index of Decisions — II page 151). While dealing

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

264 (Mumbai) followed in ITA Nos.2219, 2220, 2587/Bang/2017 and 3168/Bang/2018 Page 32 of 51 • SAP Labs India (P.) Ltd[2012] 17 taxmann.com 16 (Bang.) • Aptara Technologies Pvt Ltd [TS-309-ITAT-2016(PUN)-TP] 56. In view of the above, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the grounds of the assessee. Against this, the revenue is in appeal before

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

264 (Mumbai) followed in ITA Nos.2219, 2220, 2587/Bang/2017 and 3168/Bang/2018 Page 32 of 51 • SAP Labs India (P.) Ltd[2012] 17 taxmann.com 16 (Bang.) • Aptara Technologies Pvt Ltd [TS-309-ITAT-2016(PUN)-TP] 56. In view of the above, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the grounds of the assessee. Against this, the revenue is in appeal before