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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 92 of the Act applies. In support of the assessee’s claim that the price received by assessee from its AE for services rendered in the form of carrying out licensed manufacturing activity, is at arm’s length, the assessee filed the transfer pricing study adopting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determination

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ing Vysya House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct 0529M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), Pan: Aabct 0529M Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

depreciation of value of securities ; ITA No.288 & 318/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 50 ii) The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the classification of securities for RBI purposes would not take away the benefit which the appellant was entitled to and he ought to have appreciated that the case law referred were distinguishable and accordingly he ought to have

DCIT vs. ING VYSYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ing Vysya House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct 0529M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), Pan: Aabct 0529M Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

depreciation of value of securities ; ITA No.288 & 318/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 50 ii) The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the classification of securities for RBI purposes would not take away the benefit which the appellant was entitled to and he ought to have appreciated that the case law referred were distinguishable and accordingly he ought to have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed." 18. Explanation 2 to above section clearly provides three situations where it is deemed that income has escaped assessment and, therefore, initiation of assessment/reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148(1) would be valid. These situations are :— (i) when return of income is not filed

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

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

depreciation and development rebate.  Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/research institutions or company also qualifies for deduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section.  Section 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects, which constitute

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

depreciation should be allowed. With these observations we allow the relevant grounds of appeal for statistical purpose. . Page 12 of 18 20. As is clear from the above extract, the Tribunal was dealing with the question whether the new machinery or plant should be used by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article

WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation of Rs. 64,40,765/- while computing the total income of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The learned authorities below are not justified in law in considering a sum of Rs. 92,795/- being the excess amount while considering the disallowance as per computation in the computation of income under normal provisions

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

156; and - all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly; and (ii) if any refund is due on the basis of such return, it shall be granted to the assessee and an intimation to this effect shall be sent to the assessee.” 5.2 The cumulative effect of this section substituted and omission w.e.f. 1.6.1999 of section

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

156; and - all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly; and (ii) if any refund is due on the basis of such return, it shall be granted to the assessee and an intimation to this effect shall be sent to the assessee.” 5.2 The cumulative effect of this section substituted and omission w.e.f. 1.6.1999 of section

GRAMA VIDYODAYA SANGHA (REGD),MYSURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

depreciation at Rs.10,11,146/- and thereby the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act has been denied on the following reasons, which has been mentioned in the communication of proposed adjustment sent u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act vide letter dated 1/3/2019, which is as follows:- M/s. Grama Vidyodaya Sangha (Regd), Mysuru

HEMAVATHI NAYAK TALWAR ,MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2022-23

156 of the Act Page 3 of 6 11. The learned Officer and CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in levying higher fee under section 234A/B/C of the Act. (Total tax effect: Rs.34,490/ -) On the basis of the above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent

SRI. SATISH RAJAPUR,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation has been made by the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue requires a proper verification and examination of relevant facts at the level of the Assessing Officer and then, adjudication as per law by considering the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT v. R. Prabhu (supra). Hence this issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE vs. MR. M R SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S PEOPLE'S EDUCATATION SOCIETY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Lalit Kumari.T.A No.1074/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Circle -1, Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Peoples Education Society, 50 Feet Road, Hanumanthanagar, Bsk 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560 050 .. Respondent Pan : Aaatp3955H Assessee By : Shri. Prashanth, C, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Iii Heard On : 31.05.2017 Pronounced On : 09.06.2017 O R D E R Per Lalit Kumar:

depreciation as application of income for the computation of application under section 11 in the case of a charitable institution has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Bombay in the case of CIT v Institute of Banking 264 ITR 110. f) A similar view in the matter was taken by the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(5) PRESENTLY CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years [from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. [(8) Without prejudice

M/S GMR CORPORATION LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12

156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. (8) Without prejudice

LATE JAGJIT SINGH BAJWA LEAGAL HEIR HARLEEN BAJWA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

156,00,000/- had been re-\ninvested in the acquisition of new residential unit at “Prestige\nWhite Meadows, Whitefield, Bangalore claimed exemption of entire\nCapital gain of Rs. 151,74,000/- U/s 54 F of the Income tax\nAct'1961.\n3.3 Whereas, the case was selected for scrutiny U/s 143(3) of\nthe Act by the jurisdiction

LEVI STRAUSS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ground 10(c) is allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation on such expenditure and that the directions of the CIT(A) attained finality as no appeal was filed by the revenue in relation to the said ground; 9. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the education cess and secondary and higher education cess on income tax paid