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]

depreciation claimed on goodwill. 3. Addition on account of Free of Cost Assets 3.1. The learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, by confirming addition of INR 1,93,90,395 made under Section 28(iv) of the Act, in relation to the assets received free of cast by the Appellant. 3.2. The learned AO has erred

BANGALORE HOUSING DEV AND INV, ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

depreciation in the return of income is purely based on the bonafide belief and therefore, the benefits under provisions of section 270A

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

270A were also proposed to be initiated on this issue for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof.” 10. Disallowance under section 37 of the Act operates under Chapter IV-D of the Act while computing income under head “Profits and Gains from Business / Profession”. Expenses prescribed under sections

DECATHLON SPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE , KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated\nabove

depreciation was also allowed. Grounds related to interest and penalty proceedings were dismissed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144B", "92CA(3)", "37(1)", "234B", "270A

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation. Erroneous non-set-off of MAT credit entitlement 10. The Ld. NFAC has erred in law in not setting-off MAT credit entitlement pertaining to earlier AYs. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. Erroneous non-grant of Foreign Tax Credit 11. The Ld. NFAC has erred

M/S. AARIS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 177/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

depreciation is allowable on goodwill and the stand taken by the AO/DRP is illegal, incorrect, erroneous and misconceived and not in accordance with law and the AO/DRP ought to have held as such. 4:3 The Appellant submits that the AO/DRP be directed to delete the disallowance made by him and to re-compute its total income accordingly

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

270A, without any basis and\ncontrary to evidence on record, books of account, the\naudited financial statements and tax audit reports in Form\n3CA & 3CD.\n11. 3. Without prejudice, the Learned AO was not\njustified in making addition of Rs.20,59,84,960/- merely\nbased on the revised return on 09.02.2021, which is liable\nto be regarded as a defective

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

depreciation claimed by the appellant. 3.4. The learned AO has erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and has made an addition in the assessment order merely on the basis of intimation order issued by CPC when the said addition was not proposed in the draft order. 3.5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

depreciation on software expenses (disallowed by the AO in the earlier years considering the same as capital in nature) amounting to INR 3,970,944. 3.5 The NFAC erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to INR 15,95,29,740. IT(TP)A No.413/Bang/2022 Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

270A, without any basis and\ncontrary to evidence on record, books of account, the\naudited financial statements and tax audit reports in Form\n3CA & 3CD.\n11.3. Without prejudice, the Learned AO was not\njustified in making addition of Rs.20,59,84,960/- merely\nbased on the revised return on 09.02.2021, which is liable\nto be regarded as a defective return

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

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

270A, without any basis and\ncontrary to evidence on record, books of account, the\naudited financial statements and tax audit reports in Form\n3CA & 3CD.\n\n11. 3. Without prejudice, the Learned AO was not\njustified in making addition of Rs.20,59,84,960/- merely\nbased on the revised return on 09.02.2021, which is liable\nto be regarded

NTT DATA INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 270A of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation should be allowed considering the facts of the Appellant's case. 3. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234C of the Act 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the above ground while passing the Order under section 250 of the Act. 3.2 On facts and in circumstances of the case, the National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation of prior years against the income assessed. 21. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in granting credit of the tax deducted at source amounting to INR 51,91,605 instead of INR 83,11,493 as claimed by the Applicant in its return of income

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

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

depreciation adjustment, (c) marketing expenditure. (d) research and development expenditure (e) working capital and (f) risk profile between the Appellant and the companies identified by the learned TPO/ learned JAO. The Hon'ble DRP NeAC erred in upholding the same. 10.6. Without prejudice to the grounds mentioned above, the learned TPO / learned AO erred in law in not granting

ASIAN EARTH MOVERS,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

section 144B of the Act. 5. The Learned AO erred in computing the capital gain as short-term capital gain without reducing the cost of acquisition and constructing artificial liability to tax. 6. The Learned AO erred in determining the total income at Rs. 67,16,348/- WITHOUT setting off the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. K J FOUNDATION, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissionerof K.J. Foundation Income Tax 58/1 Thubarahalli Room No. 606, 6Th Floor Behind Sriram, Samruthi Vs. Unity Bldg. Annex Apartments, Whitefield Road P. Kalinga Rao Road Karnataka 500067 Karnataka 560027 Pan – Aabtk1178N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish R. Mody, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Cit(A)’) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case 2 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Observing That During The F.Y 2016- 17, The Assessee Had Paid Lease Rent Of Rs.9,58,28,710/-Only To Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd. Which Was A Specified Person U/S.13(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & That Such Payment

depreciation. The learned CIT(A) considered the same in detail and also the various records produced by the assessee including the fact that the lease rent paid to the company by the assessee trust for assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17 was never a subject matter of dispute and in fact the same was accepted and order under Section

ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation has been incorrectly adopted for preparation of profit and loss account. 39. In view of aforesaid, we hold that the AO erred in adding back the transferpricingadjustment of the bookprofitsundersection115JB of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal raised by the assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to exclude the transferpricingadjustment, if such adjustment survives, from