DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 194C(6) and 194C(7) are to be read together and thus after obtaining PAN from the transporters, the requisite particulars obtained from the transporters are furnished to the prescribed authority as provided u/s 194C(7), disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) would get attracted.” Page 3 of 18 3. As the learned assessing officer as per form

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S KAUTILYA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 194C of the Act do not get attracted. Further the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society in ITA 1260/2006 fortifies this stand. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble High Court upheld the jurisdictional ITAT Bangalore's decision

TIRUMALARAO P MOKASHI,BIJAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAUM

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. In the instance case, the ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this case is the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee made the payment of Rs. 2,73,06,000/- towards sub-contract payments

DHANASHEKAR MUNISWAMY vs. ACIT,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Raoi.T.A No.1135/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dhanashekar Muniswamy, No.52A, 2Nd Cross, 2Nd Main, Prakash Nagar, Bengaluru 560 021 .. Appellant Pan : Ahbpm4579A V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -6(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G. Bhaskar, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Swapna Das, Jcit Heard On : 23.08.2016 Pronounced On : 08.09.2016 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao:

condone the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal. 06. Assessee has raised the following grounds : 07. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has stated that assessee does not press grounds 1.1 to 2.2 and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. Ld. DR has raised no objection if these grounds of appeal

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

194C of the Act however it has been deducted under section 194H of the Act under the head commission which is completely wrong. The learned Counsel further referred to Paper Book Page No. 22 which is submission made before AO in which it has been clarified that Rs.12 lakhs is included in the turnover of Rs.24,50,000/- and assessee

SRI C M MALLAD,BIJAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAUM

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

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Channabasappa M Mallad, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vijayanagar Colony, Central Circle – 1, Solapur Road, Vs. Belgaum. Bijapur. Pan : Ajlpm 7802 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2020 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. In the instance case, the Id. AR submitted that the issue involved in this case is the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee made the payment of Rs. 2,73,06,000/- towards sub-contract payments

M/S PERFECTA LIFESTYLE ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

section total tax effect of 194C of the Act, but it represented day Rs.37,89,293/- to day expenditure incidental for mentioned in carrying on the business. GroundNo.2 above. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing. Rs. 37,89,293/- Total tax effect (see note below

KHAJIABDUL KARIMSAB ANWAR BHASHA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVENGERE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits. . SA No.38/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 On the merits of the case: 6. We observe that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as there was no representation from the assessee. While it is true that the assessee did not appear before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7.1.1, BANGALORE vs. TALLY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2017-18

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the revenue and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit of the case. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “i. Whether GIT(A) was right in fact and in law in restricting the disallowance made for excess deduction claimed by assessee uls. 35(2AB) to the extent of expenditure made

SRI BALAJI PROMOTERS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2016-17

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), assessee filed additional evidence which were not considered and learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that the amount paid by the Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., (BIPL) is fees

SANDEEP VIMALCHAND GADIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13

section 194C of the Act of Rs.5,520/- and assessee has not filed return of income. Therefore, the entire receipt shown in Form 26AS was treated as profit under the head “Profit and Gains of Business or Profession”. Accordingly, the assessment was completed on 26.11.2024. Assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 04.02.2020 with a delay. However, the learned