MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and\ntherefore the assessee had transferred the land for a valid\nconsideration and amounts to transfer u/s.2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act.\n3. The assessee during the survey on oath has given a statement, that\nthe possession of land has been transferred during the F.Y. 2011-12,\nwhich was also vouched

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

47)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made\nby the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is not sustainable and\ndeserves to be deleted. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is\nhereby allowed.\n16.13 As the main argument of assessee is allowed, we do not find\nnecessary to adjudicate alternate grounds of appeal. Hence

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

47) of the Act. The assessee quoted provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to reiterate his contention that the deemed transfer of Schedule A property has taken place on the date of MoU i.e. 08.04.2013. viii. The assessee contends that properties having been exchanged, the consideration for the same has be based Page

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

47)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made\nby the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is not sustainable and\ndeserves to be deleted. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is\nhereby allowed.\n\n16.13 As the main argument of assessee is allowed, we do not find\nnecessary to adjudicate alternate grounds of appeal. Hence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

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

TDS for the above mentioned properties was deducted at\nRs.1,50,000/- that was claimed as tax credit. AO applied Section 50C of the\nAct since there was difference between guidance value of the registered\nproperty and value offered for computation of capital gain. Accordingly AO\nmade addition of Rs.92 lakhs and completed assessment under Section 144 of\nthe

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 201(1)/(1A) of the Act, there is a direction by the Ld.CIT(A) for both IT(TP)A No.2846/Bang/2017 M/s. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 27 of 47 the years under consideration to exclude such payments which has suffered TDS

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

47,457/- 8 The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the adoption of Rs.40,000/- by the Assessing Officer as the FMV of the Poojanahalli Lands as on 1.4.1981 and in" rejecting the Appellant's claim of Rs.25/-per Sq. Ft. as reported by the Registered Valuer without resorting to the Valuation Machinery provided under section

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

47,112/- Interest 13,79,307/- Interest on delay payment 4.71.297 Payable 75,97,716/- Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.ITO(TDS), the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee contended that the amount on which TDS has been computed by the Ld.ITO(TDS) includes such amount on which TDS has been deducted

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

47,112/- Interest 13,79,307/- Interest on delay payment 4.71.297 Payable 75,97,716/- Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.ITO(TDS), the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee contended that the amount on which TDS has been computed by the Ld.ITO(TDS) includes such amount on which TDS has been deducted

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

47,067. 4 Penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act a) The NFAC has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. b) The NFAC failed to appreciate the that a mere difference of opinion between the Taxpayer and the Revenue would not amount to under- reporting of income. c) The NFAC failed to appreciate

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

47,924/- is to be fully allowed as deduction as claimed by the appellant. 9.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) – I, Bangalore has erred in confirming disallowance under section 14A amounting to Rs. 35,20,566/- which was taxed separately by the learned assessing officer under the head ‘Income from other sources. 6 IT(TP)A Nos.102 & 233/Bang/2013