AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. b. Disallowance on Ad-hoc and estimated basis by disallowing 20% of Advertisement and Business Promotion Expenses to the tune of Rs.24,06,60,000. c. Disallowance of expenses incurred on Employee Stock Option Scheme of Rs.4,00,000. d. Addition of loss incurred on sale of assets and provision of doubtful debts

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate the interest expenditure claimed

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate the interest expenditure claimed

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate the interest expenditure claimed

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.1,55,16,0000/- as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate the interest

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, observed that assessee debited TDS of ₹ 36,80,465/- in respect of part of stake money paid to horse owners amounting to the extent of ₹ 1,22,68

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, observed that assessee debited TDS of ₹ 36,80,465/- in respect of part of stake money paid to horse owners amounting to the extent of ₹ 1,22,68

M/S KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

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

68 of Rs. 391,89,304/- and partly confirmed by CIT (A) to the extent of Rs. 1.5 Crores received from Shri kalro as per Para 25 of the impugned order of CIT (A), Rs. 2 Crores received from M/s Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Limited as per Para 44 of the impugned order of CIT (A) and Rs. 25 Lacs received

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

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

TDS made in the form of Form 27A filed by the Appellant are not justified in disallowing Rs.69,11,858/- under section 40(a)(ia). 4. Without prejudice to the above, treating the differential value of VAT of Rs.2,10,250/- as income: 4.1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to delete the addition wrongly made

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 of the Act. She further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the assessee has not deducted TDS

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 of the Act. She further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the assessee has not deducted TDS

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 of the Act. She further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the assessee has not deducted TDS

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 of the Act. She further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the assessee has not deducted TDS

M/S. H & F GAMES PVT. LTD.,BELLANDUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 68 of the Act. He further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the Page 7 of 11 assessee has not deducted TDS

M/S. H & F GAMES PVT. LTD.,BELLANDUR, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

section 68 of the Act. He further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the Page 7 of 11 assessee has not deducted TDS

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 of the Act. She further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the assessee has not deducted TDS

HUNGRY AND FOOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 68 of the Act. She further submitted that in the case of interest payment, the assessee has not deducted TDS

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 68 of the Act. Further, from the financial statements, assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.1,55,16,0000/- as interest paid. However, the assessee has not furnished any details regarding the expenses claimed as interest paid. In this regard, assessee neither submitted any documentary proof nor provided the nature of business activity carried out to substantiate the interest