M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract

AYUB ABDUL KHANDAR TAMATGAR,DHARWAD vs. JCIT, HUBLI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2010-11

7. On the other hand, the learned DR before us submitted that the assessee is an individual and running hire charges with respect to his own truck cannot be allowed as deduction at all. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials

M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92BA read with 40A(2)(b). 6. The Learned AO and TPO has erred in determining Arm’s Length Price/ Fair Market Value of the transactions with related parties by applying comparable margins on the whole of Company’s turnover, the computation of Arm’s Length Price under TNMM, shall be determined only on the Transaction with related party

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 92BA read with 40A(2)(b). 6. The Learned AO and TPO has erred in determining Arm’s Length Price/ Fair Market Value of the transactions with related parties by applying comparable margins on the whole of Company’s turnover, the computation of Arm’s Length Price under TNMM, shall be determined only on the Transaction with related party

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

7 (1998) 232 ITR 270 (Guj) 8 (2004) 266 ITR 573(All) 9 (2001) 113 Taxman 511 Dinesh Sherla 13/14 203- itxa-252-02.doc Respondent based on the Income Tax Rules and Depreciation Table is concerned, the Table is only states that certain categories, which are Machinery IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 34 of 70 and Plants, will

CANARA BANK vs. CIT,

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Canara Bank, Bsca Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. Pan: Aaacc 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent

40A(7)(a) &(b) holds applicable to gratuity fund only and in respect of Pension fund the provision is not allowable even in case the same is a approved fund. Hence the transitional liability is held to bee prior period liability which the assessee itself has debited to the opening balance of the Revenue Reserve and is a liability which

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

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

depreciation and development rebate.  Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/research institutions or company also qualifies for deduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section.  Section 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects, which constitute

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

depreciation was claimed accordingly. As regards professional fees for post set up of stores (for running the store by RNA), the same is claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. For rendering of professional services, a consultancy agreement was executed between the assessee and RNA on 15.12.2004. 4.1 The Assessing Officer for assessment years 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

depreciation was claimed accordingly. As regards professional fees for post set up of stores (for running the store by RNA), the same is claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. For rendering of professional services, a consultancy agreement was executed between the assessee and RNA on 15.12.2004. 4.1 The Assessing Officer for assessment years 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 disallowed

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

7. The ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in ;holding the appellant has made an additional investment of Rs.15,00,000 on Flat and that requires to be assessed u/s. 69B of the Act. 8. The learned CIT (Appeals) having ;upheld the addition made on account of POOJA the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the same as available

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

40A(2) of the Act. IT(TP)A No.2569/Bang/2017 Page 33 of 84 Corporate tax issues 34. The next ground for consideration is regarding depreciation on goodwill on the following grounds raised by the assessee:- “Grounds relating to Depreciation on Goodwill: 3.1 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in disallowing Depreciation

M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPECIAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

7% 50th Percentile 10.21% 65th Percentile 13.42% 2.4. The Ld.TPO thus proposed an adjustment of Rs.13,88,20,763/- by considering the ALP of assessee at 10.21% in relation to the Administrative Support Service. 2.5. Upon receipt of the Transfer Pricing order passed by the Ld.TPO, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 17/12/2018 under section 143(3) read

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)

40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs.20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs.23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based on the seizure of cash – Rs.63 Lakhs\ng) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.70,79,282/-\n7.\nThe AO made the additions based on the results of the search and\nalso

SRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDSHANI,HUBLI vs. DCIT, HUBLI

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation). Subsequently, a notice u/s. 148 dated 1.3.2013 was served on the assessee and the AO assumed jurisdiction u/.s 147 of the Act. The AO has made certain additions/disallowance under the heads mentioned below :- 1. Addition of Rs.37,84,597/- as receipts is improper and unjustified. 2. Addition of a sum of Rs.14,420/- as unexplained cash receipts. 3. Addition

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

depreciation on the said amount as per the provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Rule 5(1) of the Income -tax Rules, 1962. 3. Disallowance of doubtful advances written off 3(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO and Ld DRP erred

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT,

In the result, IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

depreciation on the said amount as per the provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with Rule 5(1) of the Income -tax Rules, 1962. 3. Disallowance of doubtful advances written off 3(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO and Ld DRP erred