EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 144B of the Act. 18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2017- 18, much after the withdrawal of remand powers. The assessee had already furnished complete details regarding the nature and duration of software licences before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there was no legal justification for the learned CIT(A) to remand the issue back

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

section 144B of the Act.\n18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2017-\n18, much after the withdrawal of remand powers. The assessee had\nalready furnished complete details regarding the nature and duration of\nsoftware licences before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there was no\nlegal justification for the learned CIT(A) to remand the issue back

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

section 144B of the Act.\n18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2017-\n18, much after the withdrawal of remand powers. The assessee had\nalready furnished complete details regarding the nature and duration of\nsoftware licences before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there was no\nlegal justification for the learned CIT(A) to remand the issue back

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

144B should not be set aside under section 263 of the Act. 9. In response to the notice under section 263 of the Act the assessee submitted an elaborate explanation before the Ld. PCIT regarding the deduction of ₹15,59,55,015/- claimed towards remeasurement of post-employment benefit obligations. 9.1 It was explained that the deduction

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

144B of the Act and, hence, without jurisdiction. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was, therefore, justified in its conclusion that the assessment was liable to be annulled. It was right in holding that the assessment order passed by the Income- tax Officer the instant case without reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had rightly been annulled by the Commissioner

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), dated July 27, 2024 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department ('learned Assessing Officer' or 'learned AO'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed. B. Disallowance of deduction under section

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

144B of the Act ("Impugned Order"), passed by the Ld. AO, to the extent it is not in conformity with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP') under section 144C(5) of the Act ("DRP Directions"), is beyond jurisdiction, in contravention of the provisions of the Act and invalid. IT(TP)A No.300/Bang/2021 Page

M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

144B of the Act. iv.Assessment Year 2018-19 – Final Order of Assessment dated 30.06.2022 passed by ACIT, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. 2. Since common issues arise for consideration in all these appeals, they were heard together and we deem it convenient to pass consolidated order. 3. The factual background

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ASIA POWER PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismsised

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-16 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Circle – 1(1)(1), 4 Lake Side Residency, No.4, Bengaluru. Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Bengaluru – 560 042. Pan : Aadca 0485 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

144B of the Act vide order dated 26.05.2021 determining the assessed income as per the normal provisions of the Act at Rs.6,55,38,710/- and Rs.9,70,07,780/- under section 115JB of the Act. The details of disallowance made by the AO are as follows: S. No Particulars Amount in INR 1 Disallowance of brought forward loss

EBIX TRAVELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 144B of The Income -Tax\nAct, 1961 (The Act) dated 27/10/2024 passed by The\nAssessment Unit, Income Tax Department (the learned AO)\ndetermining total income at ₹ 50,021,422/- wherein the\nvariations made to the arm's-length price of the international\ntransaction was computed at ₹ 48,175,807 and disallowance\nof depreciation

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 30.4.2021 and ITA No.308/Bang/2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against order of CIT(A) (NFAC) dated 14.2.2013 passed u/s 250 of IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 50 the Act. Certain issues are common in both these appeals, hence

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 30.4.2021 and ITA No.308/Bang/2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against order of CIT(A) (NFAC) dated 14.2.2013 passed u/s 250 of IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 50 the Act. Certain issues are common in both these appeals, hence

THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

144B of the act for lack of enquiry regarding cash deposited in Lakshmi Vilas Bank. As the notice u/s. 263 is issued against the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the act, the scope of verification cannot exceed the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Ld.PCIT in the present facts proceeded to enquire on an issue which

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (Act), by the National Faceless Assessment Centre ('the NFAC'), be struck down as invalid, as the order is bad in law and on facts. 1.2. The Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 6(1)(2)/ NFAC, erred in making a reference to the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing

M/S. GOVERNMENT TOOL ROOM AND TRAINING CENTRE,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S Government Tool Room & Vs. Ito (Exemption), Training Centre, Ward - 1 1, Rajajinagar Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Rajajinagar, Bengaluru -560 044. Pan : Aaacg 8162 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024

144B of the Act. The AO stated that assessee is eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. However, the AO held that assessee a sum of Rs.83,64,55,006/- claimed as depreciation

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

144B of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ('the Act'), by the National e-Assessment Centre ('the NeAC'), be struck down as invalid, as the order is bad in law and on facts. 1.2. The Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('ORP') has erred in completing the proceedings in undue haste and in violation of the principles of natural justice

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act 4.1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the best judgement assessment under section 144 of the Act without issuing a show cause notice to the Appellant, to demonstrate why assessment should not be completed to the best of his judgement

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE,BENGALURU vs. DIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K

144B of the Act on 20.08.2022, wherein the total income was determined at Rs.101,93,88,732/-. In the said Assessment Order, the claim of exemption under section 11 was denied and total income was computed as per the Income and Expenditure accounts after disallowing the claim of depreciation