INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

B”, BANGALORE Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice-President & Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member ITA No.1590/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2013-2014 The Income Tax Officer Sri.P.N.Krishnamurthy Ward 6(2)(3) Prop: Sri Krishnachandra Vs. Bengaluru. Convention Hall, No.26, S.M.Road, Jalahalli West Bangalore – 560 058. PAN: ACOPN3645C. (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.41/Bang/2019: Asst.Year 2013-2014 Sri.P.N.Krishnamurthy The Income Tax Officer Prop: Sri Krishnachandra Ward

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NIDLE,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

section 234B of the Act is not in accordance with law as the rate, amount and method for calculating interest is not discernible from the order of assessment. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

B) the proceedings initiated under section 153C are not based on reasoning but done with nonapplication of mind. C) the appellant Company the learned assessing officer has not properly followed the mandatory requirement and various parameters for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the act have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on and invalid

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

B) the proceedings initiated under section 153C are not based on reasoning but done with nonapplication of mind. C) the appellant Company the learned assessing officer has not properly followed the mandatory requirement and various parameters for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the act have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on and invalid

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

B) the proceedings initiated under section 153C are not based on reasoning but done with nonapplication of mind. C) the appellant Company the learned assessing officer has not properly followed the mandatory requirement and various parameters for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the act have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on and invalid

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

B) the proceedings initiated under section 153C are not based on reasoning but done with nonapplication of mind. C) the appellant Company the learned assessing officer has not properly followed the mandatory requirement and various parameters for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the act have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on and invalid

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD (LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

b) of the\nAct, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under section\n132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block\nassessment only if the said statement is made in the context of\nother evidence or material discovered during the search. A\nstatement of a person, which is not relatable

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

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

b) of the Act. 6. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the provisions of section 80IA of the Act were introduced to encourage private participation for development of infrastructure and therefore the provisions had to be construed liberally. 7. The CIT(A) erred in law in not following the judicial precedents relied upon

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

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

b) of the Act. 6. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the provisions of section 80IA of the Act were introduced to encourage private participation for development of infrastructure and therefore the provisions had to be construed liberally. 7. The CIT(A) erred in law in not following the judicial precedents relied upon

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

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

b) of the Act. 6. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the provisions of section 80IA of the Act were introduced to encourage private participation for development of infrastructure and therefore the provisions had to be construed liberally. 7. The CIT(A) erred in law in not following the judicial precedents relied upon

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowing an amount of Rs. 17,562,147 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for short-deduction of taxes. b) The Hon'ble DRP and Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is attracted in cases of non-deduction of taxes or for non-payment of taxes after deduction within

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

120 Taxmann.com 264, following the above decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provisions namely section 10B(i), 10B(5), 10B(6)(ii), and section

M/S UDBHAV CONSTRUCTIONS,UDUPI vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

b) of sub-section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act ; There is no case for the assessee that DCIT was exercising jurisdiction over Udupi, without a direction or order issued under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 120

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression “sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act” is used only in section 195. For example, section 194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of “ any sum paid to any resident”. Similarly, sections

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression “sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act” is used only in section 195. For example, section 194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of “ any sum paid to any resident”. Similarly, sections

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression “sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act” is used only in section 195. For example, section 194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of “ any sum paid to any resident”. Similarly, sections

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

B deals with deduction at source by the payer. On analysis of provisions of Chapter XVII one finds use of different expressions, however, the expression “sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act” is used only in section 195. For example, section 194C casts an obligation to deduct TAS in respect of “ any sum paid to any resident”. Similarly, sections

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

4 of the assessment order, where it was mentioned that the tax deducted in respect of the payment was made over to the IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 54 of 202 Government in the subsequent year and, therefore, depreciation could not be deducted on the capital expenditure incurred