SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section n of the Act, on the ground that the activities of the appellant are hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.744 & 745/Bang/2023 Sanghamitra Rural Financial Services, Bangalore Page 2 of 54 4. The authorities below failed to appreciate that

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

10) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act and hence liable to be quashed. IT(TP)A No.298/Bang/2024 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 14 1.2 Complete effect not given to the DRP's direction 1.2.1 The learned AO has made the following apparent error while giving effect of the order of the Hon'ble DRP: • The learned

MR. SHANMUGAM RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSESSEMENT CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

section 10(2)(xv) of the Act of 1922.\"\n5.4 She further relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High\nCourt in the case of M. Seshadri Iyengar & Sons Vs. CIT cited (supra),\nwherein held as under:\n“During the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1973-74, the\nassessee-firm decided to close down its business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SARASOULE PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

In the result, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

10(2)(xv) of the Act if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by law. This view is in accord with the following observations made by this Court in CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 3 SCR 38 at page 48: "Another fact that emerges from these cases is that if the expense is incurred for fostering the business

JSW INDUSTRIAL GASES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

XV Partners Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore in ITA No.2045 & 2046/Bang/2024 vide order dated 3.3.2025 held as under:\n\"5.1 As can be seen above, the existing approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act expiring on or after 1st October, 2009 shall be deemed to have been extended in perpetuity unless specifically withdrawn. Further, any new approval obtained

MANGALORE CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowed the sum of penalty as it is in the infringement/violation of law. Therefore, in our opinion, interest paid for delayed payment of customs duty cannot be at par with the penalty paid for any infringement of law. There is no dispute that the payment of interest represents expenditure laid out wholly or exclusively for the purpose business. There

NIRMAN SONESTAA DEVELOPERS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowance made under the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. We, at the outset, find that the issue of the allowability of compounding fees under section

M/S. INTEGRACE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (APPEALS) NFAC, DELHI, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

section 43B is found to be consistent with facts on record and in accordance with law and hence does not warrant any interference. 3.6. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the second issue raised by the assessee is regarding carry forward loss of current year. According to the assessee, the details of unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Disallowance of 41,76,13,362 41,76,13,362 Provisions - Legal and Professional expenses 23,65,54,350 23,65,54,350 - Advertisement and sales promotion 10,92,813 10,92,813 - Repairs and Maintenance 59,19,766 59,19,766 - Dealer Commission 17,40,46,433 17,40,46,433 31.10.2019- The TPO passed order u/s 92CA making

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

xv]. Therefore, the appellant was suggested by the then Sri. Sudhindra, ITP who was his authorised representative, that no - appeal against the impugned order of penalty passed under section 271[1][c] of the Act is required to be filed, since the imposition of penalty is consequential and dependent on the outcome of the appeal filed against the impugned order

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA ,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

xv]. Therefore, the appellant was suggested by the then Sri. Sudhindra, ITP who was his authorised representative, that no - appeal against the impugned order of penalty passed under section 271[1][c] of the Act is required to be filed, since the imposition of penalty is consequential and dependent on the outcome of the appeal filed against the impugned order

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

xv]. Therefore, the appellant was suggested by the then Sri. Sudhindra, ITP who was his authorised representative, that no - appeal against the impugned order of penalty passed under section 271[1][c] of the Act is required to be filed, since the imposition of penalty is consequential and dependent on the outcome of the appeal filed against the impugned order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 148 of the\nAct to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for\nthat Assessment Year. Therefore the case was rightly reopened by the AO.\nThe learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed appeal of the assessee.\n6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the Order\nof learned

WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.291/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

xv) The Learned AO/TPO/DRP have failed to apply the provisions of Rule 10B(4)&,(5) and 10CA(2) while selecting the criteria and filters. xvi) The Learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in not carrying out the adjustments like risk, working capital, et:c., as required under law as well as the facts. xvii) The learned AO/TPO/DRP erred in rejecting