M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

depreciation on such sum on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

depreciation on such sum on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

depreciation on such sum on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

depreciation on such sum on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C

SHANKARANARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SNS HOUSE, RESIDENCY ROAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income tax on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete

SHANKARANARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income tax on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete

SHANKARANARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), C R BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income tax on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete

SHANKARANARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), C R BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income tax on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

234C of the Act. 6. Penalty Proceedings 6.1. The learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a company engaged in design, development and testing of integrated circuits and provides services to its group

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. OUTSOURCE PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

depreciation charged vis-à-vis those of comparables) while computing margin of comparables; 4.9 committing factual errors in the computation of working capital adjustment; 4.10. including companies having abnormal margins/ volatile operating margins in the final comparables' set, that signify high element of entrepreneurial risk, thereby not appreciating the risk profile of the services rendered by the Appellant

OUTSOURCEPARTNERS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years No.443/Bang/2016 M/S. Outsource Partners Dy. Commissioner Of 2011-12 International Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Tower 2D, Phase I, Vikas Circle-5(1)(2), Telecom Ltd., Bangalore. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Bangalore- 560087. Pan: Aaaco5734C No. 526/Bang/2016 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Outsource Partners 2011-12 Income-Tax, International Pvt. Ltd., Circle-5(1)(2), Pan: Aaaco5734C Bangalore. No.535/Bang/2017 M/S. Outsource Partners Assistant Commissioner Of 2009-10 International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Pan: Aaaco5734C Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore.

depreciation charged vis-à-vis those of comparables) while computing margin of comparables; 4.9 committing factual errors in the computation of working capital adjustment; 4.10. including companies having abnormal margins/ volatile operating margins in the final comparables' set, that signify high element of entrepreneurial risk, thereby not appreciating the risk profile of the services rendered by the Appellant

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

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

234C of the Act as compared to the interest levied as per the RoI; and 7.3 The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 read with 274 of the Act. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. Assessee filed its return of income on 30/10/2007 declaring total income

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation claimed on purchase of software under Section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Ground Nos. Ground Nos. Ground Nos. Ground Nos. (Covered by the 3-6 3-6 3-6 3-5 decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT- 7 v. Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd.) (Reported in [2021] 123 taxmann.com

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation claimed on purchase of software under Section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Ground Nos. Ground Nos. Ground Nos. Ground Nos. (Covered by the 3-6 3-6 3-6 3-5 decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT- 7 v. Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd.) (Reported in [2021] 123 taxmann.com

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation claimed on purchase of software under Section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Ground Nos. Ground Nos. Ground Nos. Ground Nos. (Covered by the 3-6 3-6 3-6 3-5 decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT- 7 v. Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd.) (Reported in [2021] 123 taxmann.com

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation claimed on purchase of software under Section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Ground Nos. Ground Nos. Ground Nos. Ground Nos. (Covered by the 3-6 3-6 3-6 3-5 decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT- 7 v. Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd.) (Reported in [2021] 123 taxmann.com

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation claimed on purchase of software under Section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Ground Nos. Ground Nos. Ground Nos. Ground Nos. (Covered by the 3-6 3-6 3-6 3-5 decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT- 7 v. Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd.) (Reported in [2021] 123 taxmann.com

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction under