RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OF TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BLR, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

gains attributable to the activities of the assessee so as to be eligible under clause (a)(i) of section 80P(2) of the Act. Therefore, the interest income earned from bank deposits cannot be treated as business income attributable to the activities of the assessee society and is accordingly held to be ineligible for deduction under section

KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4),BLR, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

gains attributable to the activities of the assessee so as to be eligible under clause (a)(i) of section 80P(2) of the Act. Therefore, the interest income earned from bank deposits cannot be treated as business income attributable to the activities of the assessee society and is accordingly held to be ineligible for deduction under section

KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BLR, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

gains attributable to the activities of the assessee so as to be eligible under clause (a)(i) of section 80P(2) of the Act. Therefore, the interest income earned from bank deposits cannot be treated as business income attributable to the activities of the assessee society and is accordingly held to be ineligible for deduction under section

BIOCON BIOLOGICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

capital adjustment subsumes the delay in\nreceivables and payables and hence, no separate adjustment\non outstanding receivables is required.\n6.8 By ignoring the fact that the Appellant has a consistent\npolicy of non-charging of interest on delayed realisation of\ntrade receivables from both third party customers as well as\nits AEs.\n6.9 Erred on facts, by not appreciating that

MR. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO, ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

244A thereon.\nThe due date of filing the return was extended to 31/10/2018 for the Asst. year 2018-19. Further, the assessee was subjected to audit u/s.44AB of the Act and filed the tax audit report also on 25/09/2018 vide e-filing acknowledgement number 305271181250918.\n\n3.1 Thereafter, the return of income of the assessee was processed and accordingly

M/S. METRICSTREAM INFOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

244A, 234A of Rs.11,07,893/-, 234B of Rs.6,45,80,647/- and 234D of Rs.1,262/-. On the facts and circumstances of the case, interest under various sections of the Act is not leviable. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds/ sub-grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave