M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

2. Disallowance of depreciation u/s.32 of the Act (Grounds 20 to 20.4) 3. Disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act (Grounds 21 to 21.4) 4. Incorrect adoption of income from other source (Grounds 22 to 22.2) 5. Disallowance of additional foreign tax credit (Grounds 23 to 23.2) 6. Disallowance of TDS credit (Grounds 24 to 24.2) 7. Interest u/s. 234B

MASS FAB TECHNOLOGIES,BANGALORE vs. CIT(APPEALS), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

section 244A of the Act on the refund due is liable to be recomputed after deleting the disallowance amounting to Rs. 13,48,407/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 9. For the above and other grounds that

ITEK PACKZ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

section 244A of the Act on the refund due is liable to be recomputed after deleting the disallowance amounting to Rs. 13,48,407/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 9. For the above and other grounds that

MICROLAND LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

244A of the Act. 14. For the above and other grounds/ additional grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1. The assessee is a Limited Company engaged

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

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

2). (3) CIT v. Paharpur Cooling Towers (P) Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 618 (SC). While discussing the powers of Settlement Commission in the said case under section 245E it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that penalty proceedings do not fall within the ambit of section 245E of the Act and the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in dropping penalty

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

2). (3) CIT v. Paharpur Cooling Towers (P) Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 618 (SC). While discussing the powers of Settlement Commission in the said case under section 245E it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that penalty proceedings do not fall within the ambit of section 245E of the Act and the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in dropping penalty

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know- how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with