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

section 75 is a section for compensating the-Government of delayed payment of the service tax / excise, there are separate provisions for penalizing the assessee for non-payment or delayed payment of service tax / excise. The assessee submits that as held by the Courts, the recovery of interest u/s 75 of the service tax / excise law is automatic and does

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

section 75 is a section for compensating the-Government of delayed payment of the service tax / excise, there are separate provisions for penalizing the assessee for non-payment or delayed payment of service tax / excise. The assessee submits that as held by the Courts, the recovery of interest u/s 75 of the service tax / excise law is automatic and does

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

section 75 is a section for compensating the-Government of delayed payment of the service tax / excise, there are separate provisions for penalizing the assessee for non-payment or delayed payment of service tax / excise. The assessee submits that as held by the Courts, the recovery of interest u/s 75 of the service tax / excise law is automatic and does

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification for cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba Jewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short that regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.” 15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023 in assessment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TESCO HINDUSTAN SERVICE CENTRE PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee's appeal as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

4) of section 10-B, the freight, telecom charges or insurance attributable to the delivery of articles or things or computer software outside India or the expenses, if any, incurred in foreign exchange in providing the technical services outside India are to be excluded, both from the export turnover and from the total turnover, which are the numerator

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

253 of the Act. There appears to be no justification\nfor cutting Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.Nos.24646-24651/2015 Prathiba\nJewellery House Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) & Ors., short\nthat regular remedy at this stage and to entertain these writ petitions on merits.”\n15.1 Being so, this ground in ITA Nos.982 to 987/Bang/2023

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page 8 of 34 to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section

M/S. ALLEGIS SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016 – 17

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Bangalore ["the CIT(A)"] dated 27 May 2019, on the following grounds: Page 2 of 10 A. Y : 2016 – 17 1.The learned CIT(A) has erred, in fact and law, by not allowing the eligible deduction of donation amounting

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

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 to support its contention that differential

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in not granting depreciation on goodwill to the Appellant. 5. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein below or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal.” 8. The assessee

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The 1d. CIT(A)/NFAC by relying on the decision of theco-ordinate “B” Bench of ITAT in the assessee