DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE vs. M/S MUURUGARAJENDRA OIL INDUSTRY PVT LTD , CHITRADURGA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

46A of the Income Tax Rules. iv. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order of the CIT(A) may be reversed and that assessment order be restored. v. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds on or before hearing of the appeal”. 3. The Assessee is a company engaged

M/S. YANTTI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,2012-13 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS on payments made to sub-contractors Rs.10,11,000 and assessed the total 3 income of Rs.97,73,505 and passed under Section 144(1)(b) of the Act dt.20.03.2015. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). Whereas the CIT(Appeals) has fixed the appeal for hearing on 19.2.2019 and none appeared

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS is wrongly deducted to misrepresent the amount paid as professional fees/contract charges. iv. no prudent man can pay such huge compensation; & v. similar payment to the contractor under the same agreement was disallowed in AY 2008-09. 24. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) relying on the decision for AY 2008-09 upheld the order

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS is wrongly deducted to misrepresent the amount paid as professional fees/contract charges. iv. no prudent man can pay such huge compensation; & v. similar payment to the contractor under the same agreement was disallowed in AY 2008-09. 24. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) relying on the decision for AY 2008-09 upheld the order

INCOME-TAX OFFICER,BANGALORE vs. M/S.TRIPLE ESS ADVERTISING PVT LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS on payments to Media entities and in view of the assessee's failure to do so, disallowed the aforesaid payments amounting to Rs.14,65,72,802 under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.4.2 We have carefully perused the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals), in view of the short point raised in the contentions of learned

ACIT, HUBLI vs. M/S GUMBI SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

46A(4), the Commissioner had power to call for evidence necessary for adjudication of the appeal. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the order of CIT(Appeals) on the ground that additional evidence ought not to have been admitted. Page 10 of 15 16. For the reasons given above, we confirm the order of the CIT(Appeals) and dismiss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

section 40(a)(ia) would not apply to disallow payments when TDS was not done and subsequently become taxable on account of a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd, 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, ITA No.1488 & 1660/Bang/2017 Page

ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

section 40(a)(ia) would not apply to disallow payments when TDS was not done and subsequently become taxable on account of a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd, 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, ITA No.1488 & 1660/Bang/2017 Page

M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

TDS were complied with by the assessee. 7. Even payments out of cash of Rs.12,24,000/- was directed to be deleted by the CIT(A) after appreciating evidence brought on record that the payments were made for business considerations. 8. Being aggrieved by that part of the order which is against the assessee, the assessee is in appeal before

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

TDS were complied with by the assessee. 7. Even payments out of cash of Rs.12,24,000/- was directed to be deleted by the CIT(A) after appreciating evidence brought on record that the payments were made for business considerations. 8. Being aggrieved by that part of the order which is against the assessee, the assessee is in appeal before

ITO, GULBARGA vs. M/S BASAVESHWARA DRUG AND SURGICALS, GULBARGA

In the result, C. O. filed by the assessee is dismissed

TDS has been deducted by the assessee as per second proviso to section 201 which has been held to be retrospective. But for the purpose of factual verification as to whether the deductee has paid tax as per law or not, we restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision with the direction that he should

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

46A and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the Order of the learned CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and further submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the AO called for information under section 133(6) of the Act in which the buyer

M/S. BIOCON LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

46A of the Income-tax, Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") substantiating non realisation of sales proceeds on transfer of "development and commercialization rights" of Oral Insulin. 4.10 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the termination agreement for revocation of license for Oral Insulin and the board minutes to this effect

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

TDS provisions are not applicable in assessee’s case. On receipt of reply objecting the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i), the AO issued notice under section 142(1) calling for the details of invoices for marketing commission paid and the details of marketing services rendered by the holding company. The assessee company also furnished the agreement evidencing that the holding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE vs. SRI K MANJU , BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by revenue in these appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri K. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk1430E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sri L. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ahopm6734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

46A of the Income Tax Rules? 3. Any other grounds that may arise at the time of hearing.” 2. The both assessee are individual was subjected to provisions of section 153C consequent to a section that took place on 8/07/2011 on Basha group. During the course of search on Basha group, certain documents belonging to K. Manju were found. Subsequently

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE vs. SRI L MANJU , BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by revenue in these appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri K. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk1430E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. L. Manju, The Assistant No. 1241/1, Commissioner Of 28Th Main, 32Nd G Cross, Income-Tax, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Central Circle – 1 (4), Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore. Pan: Ahopm6734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

46A of the Income Tax Rules? 3. Any other grounds that may arise at the time of hearing.” 2. The both assessee are individual was subjected to provisions of section 153C consequent to a section that took place on 8/07/2011 on Basha group. During the course of search on Basha group, certain documents belonging to K. Manju were found. Subsequently

SHRI. CHANNAKESHAVA Y S (HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

TDS. From the Table-1 above, it is seen that labour charges for collection of garbage has been paid to eight contractors. All these payments are above the limit prescribed in section 194C(5) of Rs. 30.000/-. Total payment evidenced here is Rs. 1,22,70,000/- as against the claimed expenditure of Rs. 1,28,20,000/-. This difference

KARNATAKA TYRE AGENCIES, ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3 , SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

TDS on rent: ₹6,54,000 . Page 4 of 5 • Underreporting of partners’ current account: ₹2,73,610 • Unexplained sundry creditors: ₹25,67,659 7.1 It is further noted that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act due to non-compliance by the assessee. Thus, the AO, in the absence of necessary records, acted within the provisions