M/S SALESFORCE.COM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly these ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.3286/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

TDS was not deducted. 12. Aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld.AO, assessee raised objections before DRP. DRP upheld the action of the Ld.TPO in respect of most of the comparables. 13. On receipt of DRP direction the Ld.AO passed impugned order on 23/10/2018 by making addition in the hands of assessee without granting any relief. 14. Aggrieved

M/S EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3375/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 301 of the Act during the financial year”. Hence, in the absence of any specific information, there is merit in the contentions of the assessee that the above said company might not have had related party transactions during the year under consideration. Accordingly we do not agree with the reasoning given by Ld. DRP for excluding this company

MA SMART DEVELOPERS MANGALORE PVT LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

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

TDS\nduring the\nyear\nEstimated\n99263440\n99263440\n99263440\n99263440\n99263440\nProject Cost -\nLand\nTotal Cost\n279263440\n279263440\n279263440\n279263440\n279263440\nTotal Cost\n134418440\n171768440\n212118440\n257801140\n260362540\nincurred up to\nthe year end\n% completion\n48\n62\n76\n92\n93\nSales\n137496980\n113675255\n39417500\n2233000\n203184000\nconsideration\nreceivable- in\nrespect of the\narea sold\nduring the\nyear\nAggregate Sale\n137496980

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

TDS; but is a statutory deduction on an asset which is otherwise eligible for deduction of depreciation. Section 40(a)(i) and (ia) of the Act provides for disallowance only in respect of expenditure, which is revenue in nature, therefore, the provision does not apply to a case of the assessee whose claim is for depreciation, which

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

TDS; but is a statutory deduction on an asset which is otherwise eligible for deduction of depreciation. Section 40(a)(i) and (ia) of the Act provides for disallowance only in respect of expenditure, which is revenue in nature, therefore, the provision does not apply to a case of the assessee whose claim is for depreciation, which

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

TDS; but is a statutory deduction on an asset which is otherwise eligible for deduction of depreciation. Section 40(a)(i) and (ia) of the Act provides for disallowance only in respect of expenditure, which is revenue in nature, therefore, the provision does not apply to a case of the assessee whose claim is for depreciation, which

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

TDS of Rs.84,099/-.\n6.\nThe assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal on 01.10.2024 with a\ndelay of 167 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC-\nCIT(A) rejected the Assessee's prayer for condonation of delay in filing\nappeal, being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard\nto delay of 167 days in filing

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

TDS of Rs.84,099/-\n6.\nThe assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal on 01.10.2024 with a\ndelay of 167 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC-\nCIT(A) rejected the Assessee's prayer for condonation of delay in filing\nappeal, being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard\nto delay of 167 days in filing

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

TDS of Rs.84,099/-.\n6.\nThe assessee, being aggrieved, filed appeal on 01.10.2024 with a\ndelay of 167 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC-\nCIT(A) rejected the Assessee's prayer for condonation of delay in filing\nappeal, being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard\nto delay of 167 days in filing

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S APL WORLWIDE EXPRESS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, to the extent of 5% of Rs.7,24,94,301/- being the payments made by the appellant towards Freight Charges M/s.APL Worldwide Express (P) Limited. paid to the Airline Companies of Indian Origin without any proper basis or reasoning and arbitrary in nature, on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S APL WORLWIDE EXPRESS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, to the extent of 5% of Rs.7,24,94,301/- being the payments made by the appellant towards Freight Charges M/s.APL Worldwide Express (P) Limited. paid to the Airline Companies of Indian Origin without any proper basis or reasoning and arbitrary in nature, on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S LOGICA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal and cross objection filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

TDS credit claimed by assessee while filing its return of income. Ld.TPO/AO is directed to verify the same and granted accordance with law. Assessee is directed to furnish requisite information/details in support of its claim. Needless to say that proper opportunity in accordance with law shall be granted to assessee. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

SHA THANMAL SUKHRAJ JAIN & CO ,RANEBENUUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

In the result, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

TDS, commission not accounted by the party, debit note, etc. In respect of addition of Rs.90,79,528 as per para 4.1 of the AO’s order in respect of non-compliance by the creditors and addition of Rs.29,60,099 where notices were unserved, the ld. AR submitted that the books of the assessee are audited and auditor

M/S AQUARELL INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

301/- and the balance amount of Rs. 91,18,238/-. was disallowed added back to the income. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee went on appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act only

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S LOGICA P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhuryit(Tp)A No.1621/Bang/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Logica Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Merged With Cgi Information Vs. Tax, Systems & Management Circle-11(5), Consultants Private Limited) Bangalore E-City, Tower 2, 95/1 & 95/2, Electronic City Phase 1 (West), Bangalore Pan: Aaacl3330M Appellant Respondent

Section 92C. Ordered accordingly. Corporate Tax issues: 13. Assessee is aggrieved on treating the expenditure on software licenses as ‘capital in nature’ and not giving credit of TDS by the AO. Software Licenses : 14. Assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,02,80,510/- as expenses incurred towards purchase of licenses for computer software used primarily as application software

LOGICA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhuryit(Tp)A No.1621/Bang/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Logica Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Merged With Cgi Information Vs. Tax, Systems & Management Circle-11(5), Consultants Private Limited) Bangalore E-City, Tower 2, 95/1 & 95/2, Electronic City Phase 1 (West), Bangalore Pan: Aaacl3330M Appellant Respondent

Section 92C. Ordered accordingly. Corporate Tax issues: 13. Assessee is aggrieved on treating the expenditure on software licenses as ‘capital in nature’ and not giving credit of TDS by the AO. Software Licenses : 14. Assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,02,80,510/- as expenses incurred towards purchase of licenses for computer software used primarily as application software

M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

TDS credit of a sum of Rs 66,094,921 as claimed by the Appellant as against a sum of Rs 65,488,691 as granted by the AO. 12. The Learned AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act 13. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

TDS credit of a sum of Rs 66,094,921 as claimed by the Appellant as against a sum of Rs 65,488,691 as granted by the AO. 12. The Learned AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act 13. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section