M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

vi) Daffodil Software Limited (vii) Evoke Technologies Limited (viii) I2T2 India Limited (ix) Melstar Information Technologies Ltd. (x) Minvesta Infotech Limited (xi) New-Age Bizsoft Solutions Pvt Ltd 2.9 Computation of operating profit margins of comparable companies The Honorable DRP and learned AO / TPO have erred in considering provision for bad and doubtful debts as operating in nature while computing

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5 of 14 have erred in law and on facts in rejecting the following comparable companies requested for inclusion by the Appellant during the course of TP assessment proceedings: (i) Informed Technologies India Limited (ii) R Systems International Limited (Segmental) (iii) Jindal Intellicom Limited (iv) Microland Limited (v) Ace BPO Services Private Limited (vi) Crystal Voxx Limited (vii) Microgenetic Systems

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

5,00,461)\nD. Interest Income\nRs. 1,16,275/-\nTotal (A+B+C+D)\nRs. 68,81,000/-\n4.2 Further, the assessee against the taxable income at normal slab\nrate of Rs. 68,81,000/- claimed deduction under section 80G of the Act\nfor Rs. 68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

VI-A were claimed correctly. 6.3 However, while processing the return, the CPC disallowed the set off of short -term capital loss arising from STT-paid transactions. As a result, the taxable income increased and the deduction under section 80G was also reduced. The assessee contended that this action of the CPC was not correct. 6.4 Relying on section

M/S. JITO BELGAUM CHAPTER,BELAGAVI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019 – 20

80G. We also noticed that Ld. CIT(E) has not examined the application of assessee in terms of section 80 G (5) of the Act. Thus, respectfully following the view taken by coordinate benches of this Tribunal in above referred decisions, we remand the question of grant of approval under section 80 G (5) (vi

M/S. CHIRANTHANA,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member M/S. Chiranthana The Commissioner Of F-25, 1St Floor, Income Tax (Exemptions) Shriram Sardhana Apartments, Bangalore Behind M.S Ramaiya Residency, Vs. Bangalure, Karnataka, 560006 Pan : Aabtc808K Appellant Respondent

80G. We also noticed that Ld.CIT(E) has not examined the application of assessee in terms of section 80 G (5) of the Act. Thus, respectfully following the view taken by coordinate benches of this Tribunal in above referred decisions, we remand the question of grant of approval under section 80 G (5) (vi) of the Act to Ld.CIT

M/S. VIMALALAYA HOSPITAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai, Judical Member

vi) of the Act, rejecting the recognition under section 80G of the Act. ITA No.1435(B)/2019 2 2. It has been submitted that assessee had made an application under section 80G on 06/10/18. It was submitted that assessee was granted certification under section 12AA of the Act, vide certificate dated 17/07/98 placed at page-10 of paper book, which

ANJANA PATEL SEVA SANGHA vs. CIT,

In the result, ITA No.1615/B/13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

TDS-III [2010 190 TAXMAN 396 (MAD.) 3. Raghubar Automobile & General Finance (P) Ltd. v/s. CIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 520 (Allahabad) / [2013] 218 Taxman 39 (Allahabad) (MAG.) 4. Sreenivas Charitable Trust v/s. DCIT [2006] 154 TAXMAN 377 (MAD.) 4. The ld. DR, however, opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that assessee has been negligent and the delay

ANJANA PATEL SEVA SANGHA vs. CIT,

In the result, ITA No.1615/B/13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

TDS-III [2010 190 TAXMAN 396 (MAD.) 3. Raghubar Automobile & General Finance (P) Ltd. v/s. CIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 520 (Allahabad) / [2013] 218 Taxman 39 (Allahabad) (MAG.) 4. Sreenivas Charitable Trust v/s. DCIT [2006] 154 TAXMAN 377 (MAD.) 4. The ld. DR, however, opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that assessee has been negligent and the delay

SHRIMATHI RANGAMMA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiita Nos.943 & 944(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Years : 2018-19) Shrimathi Rangamma Educational Trust, No.638, I Main Road, K R Puram, New Extension, Bangalore -560 036 Pan No.Aarts1783M Appellant Vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri Suraj S Singri, Ca Revenue By : Dr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit

section 80G(5)(vi)12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, passed by Ld. CIT (E), Bangalore. 2. Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a public charitable trust and has set up a school in Theranya village of Hassan District of Karnataka, which is an underdeveloped village. He submitted that school is functional from June 2017, providing educational facility to children

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

VI to the Companies Act ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India & Central Bank of India 34 1956. The assessee bank is required to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with Section 52 r.w.s. 29 of the Banking Regulation Act and not as per the Companies Act. Earlier in the case of the assessee it has been

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80G of Rs. 4,05,98,408/- and 80IAB of Rs. 585,09,09,819/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee also responded to the notices. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10AA being profit of SEZ units. The total income also comprises

M/S ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5) does not exceed fifty lakh rupees, the requirement under sub-section (1) for constitution of the Corporate Social Responsibility Committee shall not be applicable and the functions of such Committee provided under this section shall, in such cases, be discharged by the Board of Directors of such company.] 14. Schedule VII to the Companies Act, 2013 is extracted hereunder

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

TDS has not been deducted on the software expenses. Pursuant to the same, a rectification application u/s. 154 was filed by the taxpayer, as the AO/TPO had not complied with DRP directions in relation to recomputing the ALP. Aggrieved by the order of the LdAO, assessee is in appeal before us. Ground No.1-2 are general in nature. Therefore

BIOCON LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

TDS has not been deducted on the software expenses. Pursuant to the same, a rectification application u/s. 154 was filed by the taxpayer, as the AO/TPO had not complied with DRP directions in relation to recomputing the ALP. Aggrieved by the order of the LdAO, assessee is in appeal before us. Ground No.1-2 are general in nature. Therefore

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced