M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

43D. Sections 30 to 36 confer specific deductions. Section 37 deals with expenditure which is general in nature and not covered within sections 30 to 36. The allowability of brand building expense would have to be examined under section 37 - the residuary section. To examine eligibility of brand building expenses under section 37, the character of expenditure needs

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

43D of the Act. The AO has erred in treating the loss as notional and in comparing the assessee with unrelated third-party logistics companies which are well-established and not comparable to a new entrant in the e- commerce sector. Further, the AO failed to appreciate that services obtained from third-party vendors form only part of the assessee

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

43D of the\nAct. The AO has erred in treating the loss as notional and in comparing\nthe assessee with unrelated third-party logistics companies which are\nwell-established and not comparable to a new entrant in the e-\ncommerce sector. Further, the AO failed to appreciate that services\nobtained from third-party vendors form only part of the assessee

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

43D of the\nAct. The AO has erred in treating the loss as notional and in comparing\nthe assessee with unrelated third-party logistics companies which are\nwell-established and not comparable to a new entrant in the e-\ncommerce sector. Further, the AO failed to appreciate that services\nobtained from third-party vendors form only part of the assessee

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

43D of the\nAct. The AO has erred in treating the loss as notional and in comparing\nthe assessee with unrelated third-party logistics companies which are\nwell-established and not comparable to a new entrant in the e-\ncommerce sector. Further, the AO failed to appreciate that services\nobtained from third-party vendors form only part of the assessee

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

43D of the\nAct. The AO has erred in treating the loss as notional and in comparing\nthe assessee with unrelated third-party logistics companies which are\nwell-established and not comparable to a new entrant in the e-\ncommerce sector. Further, the AO failed to appreciate that services\nobtained from third-party vendors form only part of the assessee

M/S NA VANAGARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2), MYSORE

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

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

43D of the Income Tax Act. However assessee was asked for breakup of Rs.66,24,000/-. In his reply dated 08/07/2014 Assessee bank furnished the details. On perusal of the reply it is seen that total overdue of interest on bad and doubtful debt amounts to Rs.56,24,561/- for the previous year relevant to the assessment year

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS. However, the A.O. examined the claim in detail with reference to the double taxation agreement (DTAA) with USA and held that these expenses would fall under 'fees for technical services' and thus chargeable under the provisions of Indian Income tax Act. Therefore, the A.O. considered the said amount for disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. During the appeal

BROADCOM INDIA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

section (1) of section 200, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid” 39. The learned DR on the above submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee, submitted that the claim of the Assessee may be directed to be verified