BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

335 results for “depreciation”+ Section 144C(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai658Delhi577Bangalore335Kolkata82Chennai82Hyderabad55Ahmedabad47Pune31Chandigarh13Jaipur10Cochin9Indore9Dehradun7Karnataka6Surat5Visakhapatnam3Panaji2Kerala2Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Telangana1Nagpur1Guwahati1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)101Transfer Pricing71Addition to Income64Section 92C51Comparables/TP47Disallowance38Depreciation32Section 4030Deduction25

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153(1)Section 18

144C gives a complete go bye to section 153; and (ii) The Act does not contemplate any limitation for passing of draft assessment order, which can be passed within a reasonable time. 14. Though arguments were advanced that the aforesaid decision does not lay down the correct law, we are of the view that a co-ordinate Bench decision

Showing 1–20 of 335 · Page 1 of 17

...
Section 10A20
Section 14A20
Section 144C(13)17

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Ali Asgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

5, the Learned DRP/AO/TPO erred in not granting proportionate adjustment and thereby not restricting the TP adjustment only to the value of international transactions undertaken by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprises. 9. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Hon’ble DRP erred in inadvertently not adjudicating Additional Objection No. 15 taken vide petition filed

SRI. PAVAN KANDKUR,HUBBALLI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI

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

ITA 522/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 5(3)Section 8

5) of section 144C of the Income-tax Act and the Assessing Officer has not passed the order under sub-section (13) of that section on or before the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant as per the assessment order to be passed by the Assessing Officer under subsection (13) thereof; (F) in a case where

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

144C of the Act is without jurisdiction and thus all proceedings consequent to the draft assessment order are also illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed. (corresponding to additional ground no. 16.2) 16.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

144C of the Act is without jurisdiction and thus all proceedings consequent to the draft assessment order are also illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed. (corresponding to additional ground no. 16.2) 16.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account

M/S INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 159/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Prestige Thirulakshmi, No.11, Mg Road, Bangalore-560001 ….Appellant Pan Aabcs 6967N Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan,& Smt Vidya kurup AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

5) of the Act dt.25.09.2019. Further, the final assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act with total income of Rs.9, 86,91,148/- after considering the relief granted by the DRP in Transfer Pricing Adjustment. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing

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

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

144C(5) of the Act, which is in contravention to the Circular No. 19 of 2019 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, thus rendering such an order / direction to IT(TP)A No.311/Bang/2024 M/s. Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 21 be invalid and never to have been issued as per para 4 of the said Circular

M/S. SHIVA FERRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

The appeal is allowed

ITA 380/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd., No. 193, 4Th Floor, Shiv The Principal Sadan Outer Ring Road, Commissioner Of B. Narayanapura, Income-Tax [Central], Bangalore – 560 016. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aaics4564L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 5Section 68

5) of section 144C of the Income-tax Act and the Assessing Officer has not passed the order under sub-section (13) of that section on or before the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the assessee as per the assessment order to be passed by the Assessing Officer under subsection (13) thereof; in a case where

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 1670/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. (T.P) A. No.1670/Bang/2012 S.P. No.120/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kalyani Platina, 3Rd Floor, Block 1, No.6 & 24, Epip Zone Phase 1, Whitefield, Bangalore-560 066 …. Appellant. Pan Aabcs 6967N Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri D. Sudhakara Reddy, Cit-Iii (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 5.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 6.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2008-09 By The Dcit, Circle 11(4), Bangalore Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') Vide Order Dt.29.10.2012, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Rws 144C(8) Of The Act Vide Order Dt.17.9.2012. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Sudhakara Reddy, CIT-III (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

144C of the Act dt.29.10.2012 assessing the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.58,69,63,275 by making the following additions/disallowances :- (i) T.P. Adjustment : Rs.26,13,69,735. (ii) Project Specific Cost : Rs.11,25,95,270. 3.1 Aggrieved by this final order of assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09 dt.29.10.2012, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before

M/S BIESSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P.)A. No.97/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Co. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Sy.No.32, No.469, Jakkasandra Village, Circle 2(1)(1), Sondekappa Road, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru-1. Bengaluru Ruraldistrict-562 123 Pan Aaccb 7928D Appellant Respondent. I.T.(T.P.)A. No.493/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) (By Revenue) Assessee : Shri K.K. Chythanya, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Ganapati R Bhat,Cit-Iii (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 6.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These Are Cross Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By Revenue, Directed Against The Final Order Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 143(3) Rws 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') Vide Order Dt.31.12.2014, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dt.21.11.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Manufacturing & Trading Of Wood Working Machinery, Spare Parts & Tools & Also Provides Software Testing, Technical Design & Marketing Services To Its Parent Company, Biesse Spa, Italy. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chythanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganapati R Bhat,CIT-III (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

144C(13) of the Act dt.31.12.2014 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.1,87,17,950, in view of the T.P.Adjustment of Rs.10,67,28,496. 9 IT(T.P)A Nos.97 & 493/Bang/2015 Assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 in IT(TP)A No.97/Bang/2015. 5.1 Aggrieved by the final order of assessment for Assessment Year

WALVOIL FLUID POWER (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1892/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)

section (13), on receipt of directions issued under subsection (5), the Assessing Officer has to pass the assessment order in conformity with the directions without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee within one month from the end of the month in which such directions are received. 5.2 The directions passed by DRP u/s 144C (5

WALVOIL FLUID POWER INDIA PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 685/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)

section (13), on receipt of directions issued under subsection (5), the Assessing Officer has to pass the assessment order in conformity with the directions without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee within one month from the end of the month in which such directions are received. 5.2 The directions passed by DRP u/s 144C (5

KAWASAKI MICROELECTRONICS INC,BANGALORE vs. DDIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1512/BANG/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 40

Section 144C(5) of the Act for Assessment Year 2007-08. 2 IT(I.T)A No.1512/Bang/2010 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “1. The order of the learned AO and direction of the Hon’ble DRP are based on incorrect interpretation of law and therefore are bad in law. 2. Based on directions of DRP, the learned

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 673/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 673/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007 – 08

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT – DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

144C(13) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("Act") is not in accordance with the law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Reopening of Assessment: 2.1 The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that no "fresh tangible material

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

5. Disallowance under section 40(a) of the Act in respect of payments to non-resident Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’) and Non-Aes. 5.1. The learned ACIT and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on facts in disallowing payments made by the Appellant to non-residents amounting to INR 981,37,37,374 under section

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGLURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

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

ITA 656/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brocade Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd., Floor 3, B & C Wing & The Principal Floor 8, D Wing, S1 Commissioner Of Wipro Electronic City Income Tax – 1, Sez, Doddathogur Bengaluru. Vs. Village, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan: Aaccb4490N Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 18/03/2020 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ('Pr.Cit') Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Pr.Cit Erred In Law & Facts In Concluding That The Order Of The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Is "Erroneous

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 28Section 92C

144C(8) of the Act could not have exercised powers of enhancement on the aforesaid issue. Therefore, the Commissioner was free under section 263 of the Act to revise the order of the AO on the ground that the AO failed to make necessary enquiries before concluding the assessment.” Accordingly, Ground nos. 1-3 raised by assessee stands dismissed. 5

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2334/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2333/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2260/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2473/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract