M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

194C and section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

194C and section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

194C and section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

194C and section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.90,47,498/-made u/s.37(1) of the I.T.Act as the expenditure incurred towards tipper mamool by the assessee was prohibited by law and opposed to public policy. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

PRAKASH PRAVEEN KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

194C. 3.1 For the year under appeal, the assessee has e-filed his return of income in ITR-4 on 30-07-2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,58,610/-. Thereafter, the case was selected under the guideline of the CBDT letter in F. NO.225/169/ 2019/ITA-II, dated 5th September 2019. Under the above guidelines the case was selected with approval

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 194C of the Act. The assessee claimed that the party M/s Surya Team Management Pvt Ltd is a company and still registered with MCA. The party is also registered under the GST Act. Accordingly, the assessee argued that the genuineness of the payment cannot be doubted merely for the reason that the party was not found at their address

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

bogus because of the reason that the original addition made u/s. 68 of the Act was deleted and depreciation was disallowed. The depreciation disallowance was not on account of user of the assets but only for the reason that Assessee did not explain to the satisfaction of the Ld. Assessing Officer the sources of fund for purchase of assets

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

section 194C of the Act. The\nassessee claimed that the party M/s Surya Team Management Pvt Ltd is\na company and still registered with MCA. The party is also registered\nunder the GST Act. Accordingly, the assessee argued that the\ngenuniness of the payment cannot be doubted merely for the reason\nthat the party was not found at their address

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

section 194C of the Act. The\nassessee claimed that the party M/s Surya Team Management Pvt Ltd is\na company and still registered with MCA. The party is also registered\nunder the GST Act. Accordingly, the assessee argued that the\ngenuineness of the payment cannot be doubted merely for the reason\nthat the party was not found at their address

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

section 194C of the Act. The\nassessee claimed that the party M/s Surya Team Management Pvt Ltd is\na company and still registered with MCA. The party is also registered\nunder the GST Act. Accordingly, the assessee argued that the\ngenuineness of the payment cannot be doubted merely for the reason\nthat the party was not found at their address

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 194C of the Act. The\nassessee claimed that the party M/s Surya Team Management Pvt Ltd is\na company and still registered with MCA. The party is also registered\nunder the GST Act. Accordingly, the assessee argued that the\ngenunineness of the payment cannot be doubted merely for the reason\nthat the party was not found at their address

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

194C of the Act are attracted to lease financing of motor vehicles and therefore there could be no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In so far as the applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of lease rentals paid for lease of equipment is concerned, it is seen from

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

194C of the Act are attracted to lease financing of motor vehicles and therefore there could be no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In so far as the applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of lease rentals paid for lease of equipment is concerned, it is seen from

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

purchased, the details relating to the sale of Lands and the photographs. The appellant has also prepared a chart showing the total profit disclosed by the appellant for the assessment year 2007- 08 in respect of the property transaction at Kasavanahalli Village considering the sale of the property and the cost incurred. It is clarified that the appellant has incurred

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

bogus by producing any evidence. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the ld. AO with respect to the cash discount of ₹ 1,658,678,346/–. 34. With respect to the post sales discount of ₹ 672,94,21,699 it was found that

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

bogus by producing any evidence. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the ld. AO with respect to the cash discount of ₹ 1,658,678,346/–. 34. With respect to the post sales discount of ₹ 672,94,21,699 it was found that