TRITON VALVES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 7. On merits of the case, the ld. counsel for the assessee’s submission was that the opening stock, purchases as well as sales have to be valued on the same basis as the closing stock is valued in the inclusive method of accounting. For this purpose, he relied on the following case

YUVA CHINTANA FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

condoning the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 07/02/2022 declaring net taxable income at Rs. Nil and accordingly claimed refund of Rs. 11,350/- along with

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

MAAX SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay and decide the issue on merit as per the provisions of law. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR could not controvert the arguments advanced by the ld. AR for the assessee. However, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused

M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 39. The following are the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 39. The following are the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 39. The following are the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(LTU), BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS(INDIA) PVT. LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 39. The following are the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 39. The following are the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities

M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 39. The following are the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 39. The following are the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard: TP adjustment on SWD segment: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing that the operating margin decided in the Bilateral APA with USA for the US AE which was decided by the APA authorities

A-KAL TELEVERSE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of information technology enabled healthcare services. The assessee Company had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-2015 on 25.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.8,98,94,110/-. Thereafter

SRI. PARAMAHAMSA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA(N),TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, TUMKUR

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

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Paramahamsa Pattina Sahakara Vs. Ito, Sangha (N), Ward – 3, B H Road, Batawadi, Tumkur. Tumkur – 572 103. Pan : Aanas 1986 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Prakash Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017- 18. 2. There is a delay of 221 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation

SHREE GOVERDHAN NATHJI HAVELI TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS-WARD-3 , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shree Goverdhan The Income Tax Nathji Haveli Trust, Officer, No. 15, Nehrunagar, Exemptions, Seshadripuram, Ward – 3, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aacts7617M Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in filing Form 10B and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CPC. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. In the present facts, the assessee filed the audit report in Form 10B electronically though omitted to file along with the return

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANGERE SMART CITY LIMITED, DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal is condoned. 3. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, only change in figures, therefore for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are taking first ITA No.857/Bang/2024 and the decision of this appeal shall apply mutatis and mutandis to ITA No.858/Bang/2024. The grounds of appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANAGERE SMART CITY LIMITED , DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal is condoned. 3. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, only change in figures, therefore for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are taking first ITA No.857/Bang/2024 and the decision of this appeal shall apply mutatis and mutandis to ITA No.858/Bang/2024. The grounds of appeal