BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 16(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) respectively of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. These appeals are filed by the assessee after a delay of 31 days. The assessee moved an application for condonation

BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 16(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) respectively of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. These appeals are filed by the assessee after a delay of 31 days. The assessee moved an application for condonation

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

201'9, my considered view is that the aforesaid decision of the ITAT — Mumbai Bench (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand, where the entries are recorded in the assessee's books of account. In this view the matter, I am of the opinion that the addition of Rs. 6,30,000 made under section

M/S. VTH SOURCE COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

201 or section 234E and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee; (e) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (d); and (f) the amount of refund due to the deductor

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

201 days from the date of Appellate Order without filing any application for Condonation of delay if any. The Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's Appeal is liable to be dismissed since the Ld. CIT(A) was justified to hold that the AO did not have any information except information received from the Investigation Wing. 3. The Ground No.3

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

condoned and the deduction as claimed by the appellant is to be granted to the appellant. 6. The appellant denies the liability to pay Interest u/s 234A&234B, 234C and 234F of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 7. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time

BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE [BBMP],BENGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, [TDS], WARD- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaran

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and thereby confirming the orders of ITO (TDS) Ward – 1(1), Bangalore, dated 17.03.2015 passed under section 201

BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE [BBMP],BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER [TDS], WARD- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaran

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and thereby confirming the orders of ITO (TDS) Ward – 1(1), Bangalore, dated 17.03.2015 passed under section 201

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed and the cross objections being C

delay in condoned.\n Assessment Year 2012-13:\n2. At the very outset of the matter, the Ld.Counsel appearing for\nthe assessee submitted before us that the ground challenging\nthe reopening of assessment under section 148 though raised\nby the assessee in each year are not pressed. Hence this\nparticular ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The\ncross

MUNIVENKATAPPA SHIVANNA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Munivenkatappa Shivanna, Vs. Acit, Prop: Maruthi Manunath Travels, Circle – 7(2)(1), No.208/1, Idasarahalli Kempegowda Bengaluru. Main Road, Dasarahalli Near Aswath Katte, Bengaluru City – 560 027. Pan : Bixps 0619 B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Adam Kajabee, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.09.2017 Of Cit(A)-7, Bengaluru, In Relation To Ay 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Running Vehicles On Hire. The Assessee Paid A Sum Of Rs.5,75,710 As Interest On Loans Borrowed From A Non-Banking Finance Company M/S.Cholmandalam Investments & Finance Co.Ltd. The Assessee Did Not Deduct Tax At Source As Was Required By The Provisions Of Sec.194A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["The Act"] The Ao Therefore Added A Sum Of Rs.5,75,710 To The Total Income Of The Assessee For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source By Invoking The Page 2 Of 7 Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act, Which Lays Down That Where Tax Is Deductible On A Payment & Tax Is Not So Deducted, Then The Sum In Respect Of Which Tax Is Not Deducted At Source, If It Is Claimed As Expenditure In Computing Income From Business, The Same Will Not Be Allowed As A Deduction, While Computing The Income From Business. The Ao Accordingly Made The Impugned Disallowance & Addition To The Total Income U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 10. As far as the merits of the appeal is concerned, learned Counsel for the assessee filed before us certificate of a Chartered Accountant Page 6 of 7 under the 1st proviso to sub-section 1 of section 201

AVESTHAGEN LTD. vs. DY DIT,

In the result, both these appeals are

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. S. Jayaraman

Section 201(1) and the demand of interest u/s 201(1A) was filed within time. 5. Since the appeal is filed only in pursuant of the directions of the Hon'ble tribunal, the appeallant pray that the delay, if any, in filing of this appeal petition may pleased to be condoned

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

201, with regards to reasonable cause for failure to deposit TDS:- “10. In the instant case, the assessee is a Cooperative Bank. Clause 5 of sub-section (3) of Section 194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

201, with regards to reasonable cause for failure to deposit TDS:- “10. In the instant case, the assessee is a Cooperative Bank. Clause 5 of sub-section (3) of Section 194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

201, with regards to reasonable cause for failure to deposit TDS:- “10. In the instant case, the assessee is a Cooperative Bank. Clause 5 of sub-section (3) of Section 194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

201, with regards to reasonable cause for failure to deposit TDS:- “10. In the instant case, the assessee is a Cooperative Bank. Clause 5 of sub-section (3) of Section 194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

201, with regards to reasonable cause for failure to deposit TDS:- “10. In the instant case, the assessee is a Cooperative Bank. Clause 5 of sub-section (3) of Section 194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CIRCLE - 2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. INFOSYS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

condone the delay and admit the appeal of revenue. 3. In the cross-objections the assessee has raised certain legal issues and is also challenging the quantification of the default amount. 4. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief : The assessee is engaged in the business of providing business consulting information technology and outsourcing services. Information