M/S. SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, UDUPI

In the result, grounds 6 and 9 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

va) 1008,00,06,232 4. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) 87,91,40,567 5. Provision for wage revision 240,00,00,000 Total disallowance / addition 2337,41,91,131 3. The Assessing Officer also assessed tax payable u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act at Rs.757,13,40,716 after making several additions to the book profits. 4. Aggrieved

KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Karnataka State Electronics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Ttmc “A” Block, Cpc, Bengaluru. Bmtc, Shanthinagar, K. H. Road, Bengaluru–560 027. Pan : Aabck 6661 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R

section 36(1)(va) is applicable only with effect from 01.04.2021. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred treating award received from Government of Karnataka as taxable income though such receipt of award is exempt u/s 10(17A). 6. The AO has not given the credit of TDS

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

va) of the\nAct, the law allows consideration of reasonable cause when the delay is\nnot deliberate and is supported by proper evidence. The disallowance\nunder section 143(1) of the Act cannot ignore documentary material\nshowing that the delay was beyond the assessee's control. The assessee\n\nPage 31 of 40\nITA No.652-653-980/Bang/2025\n\nhas provided such evidence

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS credit after verifying and examining the relevant evidence. Hence the ground of the assessee is allowed subject to direction. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Coming to ITA No. 980/Bang/2025, an appeal by the assessee for the A.Y. 2018-19. 22. The only interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS credit after verifying and examining the relevant evidence. Hence the ground of the assessee is allowed subject to direction. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Coming to ITA No. 980/Bang/2025, an appeal by the assessee for the A.Y. 2018-19. 22. The only interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that

DATACORP TRAFFIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. By following the binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra), the employees’ contribution paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1

DATACORP TRAFFIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. By following the binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra), the employees’ contribution paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1

RAMZANALI ASGAR KHAN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 36(1)(va) which is illegal. If at all any addition to income should have been made it should have been u/s 2(24)(x). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services, in para 53 has held that the employees contribution will always retain its character as income'. Also the Amendment to Sec 43B in Finance

RAMZANALI ASGAR KHAN ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 36(1)(va) which is illegal. If at all any addition to income should have been made it should have been u/s 2(24)(x). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services, in para 53 has held that the employees contribution will always retain its character as income'. Also the Amendment to Sec 43B in Finance

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

TDS, or self-assessment tax discrepancies. 25.1 The taxpayer is notified of any adjustments via an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and they are given an opportunity to respond before any demand is raised. 25.2 However, an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. It is merely a preliminary check of the return filed

M/S. RADISYS INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RADISYS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

TDS on the 15% discount received by such employees, who have opted for the scheme. In our view, based on the option scheme and the “Employee Information Supplement India”, the 15% discount received by such employees of the assessee cannot be treated as operating in nature. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed. 16. Ground No.17

MRM SOLUTIONS,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

TDS amount. 2. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 03.10.2018. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Ac, wherein the disallowance of Rs.16,00,665/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the MRM Solutions, Shivamogga Page 2 of 7 Act was made on the ground that the employees contribution

SRI GAJANANA ENTERPRISES,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

TDS amount. 2. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 03.10.2018. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Ac, wherein the disallowance of Rs.20,74,749/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Sri Gajanana Enterprises, Shivamogga Page 2 of 7 Act was made on the ground that the employees contribution

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

va)- Rs.2,10,42,281/ Rs.2,10,42,281/- 9. Aggrieved by the additions made by Ld. ed by the additions made by Ld.AO, assessee fil AO, assessee filed objections before the DRP. objections before the DRP. 10. The DRP excluded certain he DRP excluded certain comparables and directed Ld. comparables and directed Ld.AO to compute deduction under section 10A/10

ARIBA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS, or self-assessment tax discrepancies. 25.1 The taxpayer is notified of any adjustments via an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and they are given an opportunity to respond before any demand is raised. 25.2 However, an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. It is merely a preliminary check of the return filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS on ₹ 10,90,000/- under section 194J of the Act. The Ld.AO therefore disallowed ₹ 6 lakh under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.8 Aggrieved by the additions made, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.9 The Ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order partly allowed the appeal by granting relief in respect of the disallowance made towards

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS on ₹ 10,90,000/- under section 194J of the Act. The Ld.AO therefore disallowed ₹ 6 lakh under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.8 Aggrieved by the additions made, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.9 The Ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order partly allowed the appeal by granting relief in respect of the disallowance made towards

M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS on ₹ 10,90,000/- under section 194J of the Act. The Ld.AO therefore disallowed ₹ 6 lakh under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.8 Aggrieved by the additions made, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.9 The Ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order partly allowed the appeal by granting relief in respect of the disallowance made towards

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. (ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services v. ACIT in ITA No.622/Del/ 2018 (order dated