M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. “The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the interest on arrears of sales tax is penal in nature and has rejected the contention of the assessee that it is compensatory in nature. In taking the said view the High Court has placed reliance on its Full Bench's decision in Saraya Sugar Mills

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. “The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the interest on arrears of sales tax is penal in nature and has rejected the contention of the assessee that it is compensatory in nature. In taking the said view the High Court has placed reliance on its Full Bench's decision in Saraya Sugar Mills

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. “The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the interest on arrears of sales tax is penal in nature and has rejected the contention of the assessee that it is compensatory in nature. In taking the said view the High Court has placed reliance on its Full Bench's decision in Saraya Sugar Mills

M/S I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

3), Bengaluru (2016) 75 taxmann,com 253 (Bangalore - Trib.) is also found to be well placed. In view of above, the disallowance or depreciation as made by the AO is upheld. M/s. I&B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore Page 8 of 26 7. Further, it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has relied upon certain decisions

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(3) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

253, the only two questions answered in the judgment were: (i) "Whether sub section (2) and sub section (3) of Section 14A inserted with effect from 01.04.2007 will apply to all pending assessments? (ii) Whether Rule 8D is retrospectively applicable?" The question whether the section will attract even when there is potential of exempt dividend income from share investment

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

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3 8,865. d. Without prejudice, not re-computing opening WDV to take into consideration disallowance of excess depreciation made in the preceding assessment year. e. Without prejudice, not granting deduction under section 1OA/1OB/1OAA on the excess depreciation disallowed. GROUND RELATING ADDITIONAL CLAIM 10. The lower income tax authorities have erred in: a. Dis-regarding the additional claim made

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

3) after withdrawal of the registration under 12A, is without\njurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed.\n3. Assessment order passed in wrong status is bad in law\n3.1 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in concluding that\nthe appellant is assessable in the status of 'Association of Persons'.\nThe assessment made and the order passed

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1 , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

3) after withdrawal of the registration under 12A, is without\njurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed.\n\n3. Assessment order passed in wrong status is bad in law\n\n3.1 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in concluding that\nthe appellant is assessable in the status of 'Association of Persons'.\nThe assessment made

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S U.L. INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

depreciation as claimed in the income tax return filed. D. Interest levied under section 234B 40. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B which is consequential in nature. Grounds raised in Revenue’s appeal in IT(TP)A No.378/Bang/2015: The order of the DRP is opposed to law and the facts and 1) circumstances

UL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

depreciation as claimed in the income tax return filed. D. Interest levied under section 234B 40. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B which is consequential in nature. Grounds raised in Revenue’s appeal in IT(TP)A No.378/Bang/2015: The order of the DRP is opposed to law and the facts and 1) circumstances

M/S UL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

depreciation as claimed in the income tax return filed. D. Interest levied under section 234B 40. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B which is consequential in nature. Grounds raised in Revenue’s appeal in IT(TP)A No.378/Bang/2015: The order of the DRP is opposed to law and the facts and 1) circumstances

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

253. The reduction was thus a sum of Rs.141,22,98,442. The assessee had share capital and reserves in excess of Rs.1000 crores and gave the following details in this regard: Particulars YE 31.3.2011 YE 31.3.2010 Share Capital 5,01,97,200 54,74,650 Reserves and Surplus 18,01,99,18,452 .1000,00,89,176 Loan Funds

JUPITER CAPITAL P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

253. The reduction was thus a sum of Rs.141,22,98,442. The assessee had share capital and reserves in excess of Rs.1000 crores and gave the following details in this regard: Particulars YE 31.3.2011 YE 31.3.2010 Share Capital 5,01,97,200 54,74,650 Reserves and Surplus 18,01,99,18,452 .1000,00,89,176 Loan Funds

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

253. The reduction was thus a sum of Rs.141,22,98,442. The assessee had share capital and reserves in excess of Rs.1000 crores and gave the following details in this regard: Particulars YE 31.3.2011 YE 31.3.2010 Share Capital 5,01,97,200 54,74,650 Reserves and Surplus 18,01,99,18,452 .1000,00,89,176 Loan Funds

M/S INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1280/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant 5Th Floor, Embassy Paragon Commissioner Of Building, Thoobarahali Income Tax, Village, Ltu, Circle – 1, Itpl Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aaaci5394J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18-08-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.02.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Software Development, Sales & Support Services, Technology & Hardware Design Support & Investment Management Services.

253(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ("the Act") in respect of the order passed by the Honorable Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Bangalore ["Hon'ble CIT (A)"]. The said appeal is preferred against the appellate order of the CIT (A) issued in connection with the assessment order of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Tax Payers

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

253 Partly deleted miscellaneous expenditure as per para 9.3 12 Disallowance of other 3,99,95,033 Deleted as per provisions para 10.4 13 Expenditure debited under 84,98,42,348 Partly Deleted the head cost of goods sold as per para 11.1.1 – 11.5 14 Outside contract service 36,14,59,731 Partly deleted as per para 12.2 15 Date

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

253 Partly deleted miscellaneous expenditure as per para 9.3 12 Disallowance of other 3,99,95,033 Deleted as per provisions para 10.4 13 Expenditure debited under 84,98,42,348 Partly Deleted the head cost of goods sold as per para 11.1.1 – 11.5 14 Outside contract service 36,14,59,731 Partly deleted as per para 12.2 15 Date

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Depreciation) debited to that profit and loss account on the ground that the appellant did not justify the expenditure claimed. The conclusion of authorities below being wholly erroneous, without any basis and purely adhoc is to be rejected and the disallowance as made/sustained is to be deleted. ITA Nos.307 to 312/Bang/2020 Shri K.G. Krishna, Bangalore Page