SRI ARTHUR BERNARD SEBASTINE PAIS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Arthur Bernard Sebastine Pais, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.2C, 214, Hrbr Layout, Income-Tax, 3Rd Block, Cpc, Bengaluru – 560 084. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaqpp 2199 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Lalitha B, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghali, Advocate Standing Counsel To Department Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2019 O R D E R

43C, in the case of an Assessee, being a resident in India, who is engaged in a profession referred to in sub-section (1) of section 44AA and whose total gross receipts do not exceed fifty lakh rupees in a previous year, a sum equal to fifty per cent of the total gross receipts of the Assessee in the previous

PRAKASH PRAVEEN KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

TDS u/s 194C. 3.1 For the year under appeal, the assessee has e-filed his return of income in ITR-4 on 30-07-2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,58,610/-. Thereafter, the case was selected under the guideline of the CBDT letter in F. NO.225/169/ 2019/ITA-II, dated 5th September 2019. Under the above guidelines the case was selected

M/S DIVYASREE REALTORS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS were duly deducted by M/s. Shyamaraju & Co. India Ltd. As per the Ld. AR, AO had placed reliance on a statement of Shri. P. Shyamaraju, General Manager (Finance) of M/s. Shyamaraju & Co. India P. Ltd, for coming to a conclusion that the transactions of contract work was only a make-believe one. As per the Ld. AR, assessee

M/S INFOSYS BPM LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2009-10

43C, as meaning actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis on which profits or gains are computed under s. 28/29. That is why in deciding the question as to whether the word "expenditure" in s. 37(1) includes the word "loss" one has to read s. 37(1) with

M/S. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

Section 11(1) reads as under:- “11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such