B RUDRA GOUDA ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

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

section 37 (1) of the Act.” 7.10.10. We note that the CEC, vide its report dated 3-2-2012 and 13- 3-2012 made recommendations with regard to setting up of SPV, transfer of funds collected from all lease holders under various heads, manner of utilisation of said funds etc., to Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is incorporated in Paragraph

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY vs. SRI B RUDRA GOWDA , BELLARY

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

section 37 (1) of the Act.” 7.10.10. We note that the CEC, vide its report dated 3-2-2012 and 13- 3-2012 made recommendations with regard to setting up of SPV, transfer of funds collected from all lease holders under various heads, manner of utilisation of said funds etc., to Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is incorporated in Paragraph

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 37(1) of the Act and not otherwise. 31. For the reasons afore stated, we are of the considered view that substantial question law formulated herein is to be answered in the negative i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 10.5.3. In the instant case also, the assessee has contributed funds at the specific request

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 37(1) of the Act and not otherwise. 31. For the reasons afore stated, we are of the considered view that substantial question law formulated herein is to be answered in the negative i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 10.5.3. In the instant case also, the assessee has contributed funds at the specific request

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

37(1) of the Act. 7. Interest levied under sections 234B. 7.1. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, interest under section 234B is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay interest under section 234B. 8. Prayer 8.1. In view

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

37(1) of the Act. 7. Interest levied under sections 234B. 7.1. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, interest under section 234B is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay interest under section 234B. 8. Prayer 8.1. In view

SRI HIREHAL GAVIAPPA RANGAN GOUD ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Hirehal Gaviappa Rangan Goud, Mine Owner, Hrg Enclaves, Opp. Leelavathi Nilayam, Tilak Nagar, Cantonment, Bellary-583 104 ….Appellant Pan Adwpg 8968L Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bellary. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit (D.R)

Section 37(1) of the Act and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. In respect of addition of Rs.15 lakhs being the provision for audit fees, where the assessee has failed to deduct TDS

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

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

37. Even if the above observations is understood to be laying down a note of caution, the same would be a qualified one and can have no application in a case of mass tort as has been occasioned in the present case. The mechanism provided by any of the Statutes in question would neither be effective nor efficacious to deal

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

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

37. Even if the above observations is understood to be laying down a note of caution, the same would be a qualified one and can have no application in a case of mass tort as has been occasioned in the present case. The mechanism provided by any of the Statutes in question would neither be effective nor efficacious to deal

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

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

37. Even if the above observations is understood to be laying down a note of caution, the same would be a qualified one and can have no application in a case of mass tort as has been occasioned in the present case. The mechanism provided by any of the Statutes in question would neither be effective nor efficacious to deal

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BELLARY vs. M/S. SOUTH WEST MINING LIMITED, BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

37 of the Act on the following reasons: 1) A plain reading of section 35E makes it amply clear that the section speaks of allowability of expenses incurred in connection with prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral or development of a mine. Thus, the contention that the provisions of section 35E are applicable to expenditure incurred in connection

SKF TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

37 of the Act in accordance with law. For these reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. In our opinion, there is no doubt that assessee has to establish receipt of benefits on account of services rendered by its AEs and these were compensated on a level comparable to payments that would

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

37,210/-. The said return of income was duly processed under the provisions of section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] and subsequently after issue of requisite ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 8 of 72 notice u/s 143(2) along with notice u/s 142(1) the assessment

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

37,210/-. The said return of income was duly processed under the provisions of section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] and subsequently after issue of requisite ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 8 of 72 notice u/s 143(2) along with notice u/s 142(1) the assessment

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

37,210/-. The said return of income was duly processed under the provisions of section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] and subsequently after issue of requisite ITA No.767 to 771/2014 & 1008- & 1009/Bang/2015 Page 8 of 72 notice u/s 143(2) along with notice u/s 142(1) the assessment

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

37(1) of the Act. 7.5. The Hon'ble DRP has erred on facts and in law in concluding that ESOP/ ESBP expense relates to issue of shares and therefore is capital in nature. 7.6. The Hon'ble DRP has erred on facts and in law in holding that if security premium is not taxable as capital receipt, then short

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

section 28 of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld.Counsel relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dr.T.A Quereshi vs CIT (supra). OR; ii. To treat it as expenditure in the hands of assessee under section 37 of the Act. It has been submitted by Ld.Counsel that Explanation 2 to section 37 is not applicable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed and the cross objections being C

37(1)", "Section 36(1)(vii)" ], "issues": "1. Whether the sales commission paid to a foreign entity is taxable in India as FTS and if TDS