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

capital assets and raw material included in sales tax return but not included in the product sales, the assessee did not offer any explanation. With respect to service tax on reverse charge, as in none of the earlier assessment years’ service tax on reverse charge was claimed the ld. AO rejected the claim. He also confirmed the other adjustment

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

capital assets and raw material included in sales tax return but not included in the product sales, the assessee did not offer any explanation. With respect to service tax on reverse charge, as in none of the earlier assessment years’ service tax on reverse charge was claimed the ld. AO rejected the claim. He also confirmed the other adjustment

JADAGADDER PAKKERAPPA, LEGAL HEIR SAROJAMMA,SHIKARIPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gain and added the same to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.60,00,000 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 12.1.2024, the legal heir of the assessee

MR. SHANMUGAM RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSESSEMENT CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

capital gains taxable\nunder section I I IA and 112A of the Act is bad in law under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case.\n(b) The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that the income other\nthan the income taxable under the provisions of DTAA does not exceed I\nCrore and thus the rate of surcharge ought

MANGALORE CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

gains of business or profession". Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

xv. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that it is well settled position of law that no amount of suspicion can take the place of evidence. The very fact that the learned AO had to strain himself so much to force-fit the numbers itself reveals that the same is not self-evident in themselves so as to treat

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital, ctc., as required under law as well as the facts. iv) The Learned AO / TPO / DIRP erred in wrongly adopting the financial results of the assessee. v) The Learned AO/TPO/DRP have failed to identify a comparable in terms of Rule 10B(3). vi) The Learned AO/TPO/DRP erred in rejecting certain comparables on unsustainable and untenable grounds/reasons while considering comparables

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

xv) The Learned AO/TPO/DRP have failed to apply the provisions of Rule 10B(4)&,(5) and 10CA(2) while selecting the criteria and filters. xvi) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not carrying out the adjustments like risk, working capital, et:c., as required under law as well as the facts. xvii) The learned AO/TPO/DRP erred in rejecting