MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

292B of the Act would stand frustrated/defeated. The intent of the Legislature is clear from the language employed in this provision which states that a defective notice, such as the one in the present case, cannot be declared invalid by reason of any mistake, defect or omission, if the notice in 'substance' and in 'effect' is in conformity with

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

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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.\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\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 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

M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

TDS in respect of above expenditure. Therefore, the AO invoking the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act disallowed a sum of Rs.35,81,735/-. 3.3 The AO also made addition of Rs.7100/- debited to P&L Account under the head ‘donations’. The AO also noticed that cash payment of Rs.12,24,000/-, details of which are given below

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

TDS in respect of above expenditure. Therefore, the AO invoking the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act disallowed a sum of Rs.35,81,735/-. 3.3 The AO also made addition of Rs.7100/- debited to P&L Account under the head ‘donations’. The AO also noticed that cash payment of Rs.12,24,000/-, details of which are given below

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act and they render the entire proceedings null and void. 35. In the present case, it is seen that the Revenue has failed to allude to any steps which were taken to determine that the seized material belonged to the respondent-assessee group. Notably, the satisfaction note has also been prepared in a mechanical format

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

292B of the Act and they render the entire\nproceedings null and void.\n35. In the present case, it is seen that the Revenue has failed to allude to\nany steps which were taken to determine that the seized material belonged to\nthe respondent-assessee group. Notably, the satisfaction note has also been\nprepared in a mechanical format

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act and they render the entire proceedings null and void. 35. In the present case, it is seen that the Revenue has failed to allude to any steps which were taken to determine that the seized material belonged to the respondent-assessee group. Notably, the satisfaction note has also been prepared in a mechanical format

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act and they render the entire proceedings null and void. 35. In the present case, it is seen that the Revenue has failed to allude to any steps which were taken to determine that the seized material belonged to the respondent-assessee group. Notably, the satisfaction note has also been prepared in a mechanical format

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

292B of the Act and they render the entire proceedings null and void. 35. In the present case, it is seen that the Revenue has failed to allude to any steps which were taken to determine that the seized material belonged to the respondent-assessee group. Notably, the satisfaction note has also been prepared in a mechanical format

M/S ILC INDUSTRIES LTD.,,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS was deducted also leads one to suspect the genuineness of the expenditure. The assessee-company had made no effort to conclusively prove that this expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose. Entry in the books of account is self-made entry, no credence can be given unless and otherwise corroborated by independent evidence. Mere entry

M/S ILC INDUSTRIES LTD.,,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS was deducted also leads one to suspect the genuineness of the expenditure. The assessee-company had made no effort to conclusively prove that this expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose. Entry in the books of account is self-made entry, no credence can be given unless and otherwise corroborated by independent evidence. Mere entry

M/S ILC INDUSTRIES LTD.,,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS was deducted also leads one to suspect the genuineness of the expenditure. The assessee-company had made no effort to conclusively prove that this expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose. Entry in the books of account is self-made entry, no credence can be given unless and otherwise corroborated by independent evidence. Mere entry

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX,LTU, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. H.P. India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Hewelett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.), 24, Salarpuria Arenam Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru-560 030. … Appellant Pan:Aaacc9862F Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent & (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2019 O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bengaluru, Dated 30/06/2014 For The Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04. Since The Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, They Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order.

TDS - The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in holding that both deduction and payment/deposit of tax deducted at source is applicable from 1/4/2004 and would not be applicable for A.Y.2002-03 and A.Y.2003-04. As per Sec.40a(i) no deduction shall be allowable in a case where the assessee has not deducted tax or after deduction of tax not paid sum before

JOINT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX,LTU, BANGALORE vs. HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT LTD, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. H.P. India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Hewelett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.), 24, Salarpuria Arenam Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru-560 030. … Appellant Pan:Aaacc9862F Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent & (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2019 O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bengaluru, Dated 30/06/2014 For The Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04. Since The Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, They Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order.

TDS - The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in holding that both deduction and payment/deposit of tax deducted at source is applicable from 1/4/2004 and would not be applicable for A.Y.2002-03 and A.Y.2003-04. As per Sec.40a(i) no deduction shall be allowable in a case where the assessee has not deducted tax or after deduction of tax not paid sum before

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Section 292B of the Act and they render the entire\nproceedings null and void.\nPage 58 of 147\n35. In the present case, it is seen that the Revenue has failed to allude to\nany steps which were taken to determine that the seized material belonged to\nthe respondent-assessee group. Notably, the satisfaction note has also been\nprepared

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

MR. SALEEM THANGAL KADER PLAKAD,INDIVIDUAL,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 292B of the Act, would not assist the revenue on the presumption that the appellant has provided consent , by participating in the assessment proceedings. ITA Nos.539 to 541/Bang/2023 Page 7 of 17 a) CIT — I, Chandigarh v Harjinder Kaur, [2009] 310 ITR 71 (Punjab & Haryana) — (Para — 5) b) CIT, AP-1, Hyderabad v Bake food Products