M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

56 is that a primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary agricultural credit society, as such co-operative bank must be engaged in the business of banking as defined by section 5(b) of the said Act, which means accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from public. Likewise, under section

M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

56,380/- OnMobile Telecom Limited Rs. 53,64,856/- OnMobile Zambia Telecom Limited Rs. 2,58,70,467/- OnMobile Global Spain S.A Rs. 4,44,72,326/- OnMobile Bangladesh Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 40,45,221/- OnMobile Madagascar Telecom Rs. 1,39,994/- Limited Income from Voxmobili Rs.5,50,61,766 software development services 10. With regard to the income from

M/S ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

56,380/- OnMobile Telecom Limited Rs. 53,64,856/- OnMobile Zambia Telecom Limited Rs. 2,58,70,467/- OnMobile Global Spain S.A Rs. 4,44,72,326/- OnMobile Bangladesh Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 40,45,221/- OnMobile Madagascar Telecom Rs. 1,39,994/- Limited Income from Voxmobili Rs.5,50,61,766 software development services 10. With regard to the income from

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

56 is that a primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary agricultural credit society, as such co-operative bank must be engaged in the business of banking as defined by section 5(b) of the said Act, which means accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from public. Likewise, under section

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

56 is that a primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary agricultural credit society, as such co-operative bank must be engaged in the business of banking as defined by section 5(b) of the said Act, which means accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from public. Likewise, under section

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

56 is that a primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary agricultural credit society, as such co-operative bank must be engaged in the business of banking as defined by section 5(b) of the said Act, which means accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from public. Likewise, under section

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

56 employees also needs to be rejected. The Ld. DR submitted that the salary paid to these employees during the year under consideration works out to Rs.2,70,94,148/- and the assessee had claimed 30% deduction on the same, which works out to Rs.81,28,244/-. Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that the claim of the assessee to this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

IB of the Act." 7. Applying the same analogy, it can be held that if deduction u/s. 4o[a][ia] of the Act is not allowed, the same would have been to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. loA of the Act. This view is fortified

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

IB of the Act." 7. Applying the same analogy, it can be held that if deduction u/s. 4o[a][ia] of the Act is not allowed, the same would have been to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. loA of the Act. This view is fortified

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

IB of the Act." 7. Applying the same analogy, it can be held that if deduction u/s. 4o[a][ia] of the Act is not allowed, the same would have been to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. loA of the Act. This view is fortified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

IB of the Act." 7. Applying the same analogy, it can be held that if deduction u/s. 4o[a][ia] of the Act is not allowed, the same would have been to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the Assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. loA of the Act. This view is fortified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS credit of INR 113,126. Tax effect: Reduction in refund - INR 113,126 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings That the AO have erred in facts and law in initiating proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5. Relief That the Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief and arising from the above grounds

M/S. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS credit of INR 113,126. Tax effect: Reduction in refund - INR 113,126 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings That the AO have erred in facts and law in initiating proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5. Relief That the Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief and arising from the above grounds

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Section\n147 of the Act, he cannot make such disallowances in respect of matters which\nhave reached finality in the original assessment and which arc not in the nature of\nany escapement of income within the meaning of Section 147. The learned Counsel\nfor assessee pointed out that the original assessment was made Under Section\n143(1) and thereafter

C D O JAIN EDUCATION SOCIETY,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

TDS credit of Rs.81,878/-. 3.1 Upon realizing the mistake, the assessee promptly filed a rectification application before the CPC on 15/04/2023 by making necessary changes in the return. The assessee had also filed an audit report in correct Form No.10BB on 15/04/2023 vide acknowledgement no. 117209210150423. The assessee had also filed the delay condonation petition before

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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

TDS; but is a statutory deduction on an asset which is otherwise eligible for deduction of deprecation. Depreciation is not an outgoing expenditure and therefore, the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) of the Act are not attracted on such deduction. This view has been fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

TDS; but is a statutory deduction on an asset which is otherwise eligible for deduction of deprecation. Depreciation is not an outgoing expenditure and therefore, the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) of the Act are not attracted on such deduction. This view has been fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case