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) of the Act. The Ld.AO observed that assessee capatalised payment made to Home Center LLC and consequent depreciation

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) of the Act. The Ld.AO observed that assessee capatalised payment made to Home Center LLC and consequent depreciation

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) of the Act. The Ld.AO observed that assessee capatalised payment made to Home Center LLC and consequent depreciation

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 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. 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. 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

Depreciation on goodwill 1,57,73,310 IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 70 2.2 The AO accordingly proposed to assess the income of the assessee at Rs.429,75,39,850/- against the income of Rs.349,75,85,670/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved by the additions proposed

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

40A(2) and alternatively u/s 37 of the I T Act holding that the TPO while determining the ALP has not disputed the genuineness of the payment and has accepted the ALP declared by the assessee. 3. On the facts of the case, whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the above addition made without appreciating the fact that

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

40A(2) and alternatively u/s 37 of the I T Act holding that the TPO while determining the ALP has not disputed the genuineness of the payment and has accepted the ALP declared by the assessee. 3. On the facts of the case, whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the above addition made without appreciating the fact that

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

40A(3) are not applicable and addition is not warranted. 12. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding

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

section 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

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

depreciation of loss amounting to Rs.28,54,47,236/- pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.83,52,86,117/- pertaining to assessment year 2013- 14, totalling to Rs.1,12,07,33,535/-. The Ld.AO while passing the draft assessment order denied the claim of assessee. The Ld.AO while passing final assessment order noted that that on completion of assessment

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

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

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

M/S MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED ,MYSURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Mysore Race Club The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Post Box No. 11, Tax, Race Course Road, Vs. Circle – 1 [2], Mysuru – 570 010. Mysuru. Pan: Aabcm5167G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/10/2016 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2011- 12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstance Of The Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed Over & Above The Returned Income By It On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Collected From Punters For Disbursement As Dividend To Punters Stands Diverted At Source By Virtue Of Overriding Title On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. [I]. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That The Totalizator Collection From The Punters Stands Diverted At Source For Disbursement To Dividend To Punters On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. [Ii]. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That Method Of Accounting Adopted By The Appellant Were Accepted By The Revenue From Past

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also allowed the claim Page 5 of 14 ITA No. 1480/Bang/2017 pertaining to expenditure disallowed in earlier years for which provision was made and was also not considered by assessing officer in the assessment order. The Ld.CIT(A) also had directed the lower deal to consider the claim of brought forward

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