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

section 40A (2)/37 on the ground that they are excessive unreasonable and unrelated, which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 6.2 It is a case of assessee that there is no distinguishing fact for year under consideration vis-à-vis assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein identical international transaction was found to be at arms length. Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

section 40A (2)/37 on the ground that they are excessive unreasonable and unrelated, which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 6.2 It is a case of assessee that there is no distinguishing fact for year under consideration vis-à-vis assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein identical international transaction was found to be at arms length. Page

M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

section 40A (2)/37 on the ground that they are excessive unreasonable and unrelated, which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 6.2 It is a case of assessee that there is no distinguishing fact for year under consideration vis-à-vis assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein identical international transaction was found to be at arms length. Page

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

section 40A (2)/37 on the ground that they are excessive unreasonable and unrelated, which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 6.2 It is a case of assessee that there is no distinguishing fact for year under consideration vis-à-vis assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein identical international transaction was found to be at arms length. Page

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

section 40A (2)/37 on the ground that they are excessive unreasonable and unrelated, which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 6.2 It is a case of assessee that there is no distinguishing fact for year under consideration vis-à-vis assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein identical international transaction was found to be at arms length. Page

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

depreciation/ running expenses on such truck at the same time. We note that the learned AR for the assessee has not brought any contrary material against the finding of the lower authorities. The learned AR for the assessee only contended that instead of disallowing the entire hire charges debited against the assessee’s own vehicles, only the amount of profit

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

depreciation on capitali- zed expenses – Rs.6,51,10,329/- Disallowance of software expenses u/s 40a/40a(ia) - Rs.11,28,69,584/- Disallowance of legal professional fees paid to the partnership firms outside India – Rs.46,05,273/- Disallowance of deduction u/s 80JJAA – Rs.23,20,36,444/- 7. Accordingly, he computed taxable income of Rs.260,94,26,098/- and completed the assessment accordingly

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

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 have particular rate and rest which fall under the Machinery and Plant

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

9) of Section 10B. In the matter of GENERAL FINANCE CO. vs. ACIT, which judgment has also been taken note of by the tribunal while repelling the contention raised by revenue with regard to retrospectivity of Section 92BA(i) of the Act. Thus, when clause (i) of Section 92BA having been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from

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

9 - 1 0 . 11. The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) of the Act without considering the contention that provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act without considering the contention that provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act without considering the contention that provisions of section 40A(3) are not applicable

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

depreciation. The aforesaid finding has rightly been affirmed by the tribunal. The findings recorded by the ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 24 of 38 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal cannot be termed as perverse. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial question of law framed

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

depreciation. The aforesaid finding has rightly been affirmed by the tribunal. The findings recorded by the ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 24 of 38 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal cannot be termed as perverse. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial question of law framed

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

depreciation. The aforesaid finding has rightly been affirmed by the tribunal. The findings recorded by the ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 24 of 38 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal cannot be termed as perverse. In view of preceding analysis, the substantial question of law framed

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)

9. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn\nexempted income has to be a smaller part of exempt\nincome and should be a reasonable proportion to exempted\nincome earned by the assessee in that year.\n18. 10. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat no disallowance under Section

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

9. …………. The first proviso thus puts a rider only on the sixth category i.e. for "advancement of any other object of general public utility", that it will not be held to be charitable purpose if it involves the carrying out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

9. …………. The first proviso thus puts a rider only on the sixth category i.e. for "advancement of any other object of general public utility", that it will not be held to be charitable purpose if it involves the carrying out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

9. …………. The first proviso thus puts a rider only on the sixth category i.e. for "advancement of any other object of general public utility", that it will not be held to be charitable purpose if it involves the carrying out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

9. …………. The first proviso thus puts a rider only on the sixth category i.e. for "advancement of any other object of general public utility", that it will not be held to be charitable purpose if it involves the carrying out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation