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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

EVALUATIONZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any reason to uphold the orders of the learned lower authorities confirming the disallowance of Rs

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 36,55,489 under section 69C 2.1. The learned AO and the CIT(A), NFAC have erred in making addition of Rs. 36,55,489 under section 69C in respect of expenditure paid to M/s Techprocode Informat Technology Pvt. Ltd only for the reason that the notice under section 133(6

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

133(6). Hence, the\naverments of the CIT (A) is not as per law.\n\n12. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B\nconsequential to the addition made by AO.\n\n13. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any\nof the grounds that may be urged at the time

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

133(6). Hence, the\naverments of the CIT (A) is not as per law.\n12. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B\nconsequential to the addition made by AO.\n13. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any\nof the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

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

133(6) of the Act, which were not available with the Appellant at the time of preparing its TP documentation. 1.15.2 The Hon'ble DRP/ learned AO / TPO have erred in law by relying upon the information not available in public domain while carrying out the benchmarking analysis under the Act. 1.16 Not granting working capital adjustment

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) is not as per law. 12. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

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

133(6). g) The Ld. Panel erred in confirming the same. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO also erred in treating provisions for doubtful h) debts as non-operating in nature while calculating the net margins •of the comparable companies: The Ld. Panel also erred in confirming the same. The Ld. AO/Ld. TPO also erred on facts in erroneously computing

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

disallowing of travelling expenses of Rs.29,009/- which was claimed in Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s.148. 13. The CIT (A) and The A.O. have failed to send letters for confirmation of loans taken from Lenders and also interest paid to them by invoking provisions of section 133(6

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

disallowing of travelling expenses of Rs.29,009/- which was claimed in Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s.148. 13. The CIT (A) and The A.O. have failed to send letters for confirmation of loans taken from Lenders and also interest paid to them by invoking provisions of section 133(6

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

disallowing of travelling expenses of Rs.29,009/- which was claimed in Return of Income filed in response to notice u/s.148. 13. The CIT (A) and The A.O. have failed to send letters for confirmation of loans taken from Lenders and also interest paid to them by invoking provisions of section 133(6

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT - PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

6 expense mentioned above), rental agreement and list of accrual entries as part of audit entries along Page 23 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 with appropriate explanation towards passing audit entries. (vi) Additionally, without prejudice to the above, the Assessee vide additional evidence petition (refer page 133 to 176) has collated and furnished additional information /details in connection with the audit

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

6 expense mentioned above), rental agreement and list of accrual entries as part of audit entries along Page 23 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 with appropriate explanation towards passing audit entries. (vi) Additionally, without prejudice to the above, the Assessee vide additional evidence petition (refer page 133 to 176) has collated and furnished additional information /details in connection with the audit

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

133(6) of the Act directly without confronting to the assessee, the additions made is wrong and the AO has not rightly added the differences noted in the closing balance of the creditors with the assessee’s closing balance as on 31.03.2014. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that

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

133(6) of the Act directly without confronting to the assessee, the additions made is wrong and the AO has not rightly added the differences noted in the closing balance of the creditors with the assessee’s closing balance as on 31.03.2014. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE 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 Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

133(6) to these parties and obtain the information and the alleged bogus purchases only could have been disallowed that at best the profit earned on the alleged bogus purchases. Only could have been disallowed by the AO and not the entire purchases. The Panel had called for certain details from the JAQ directing him to produce the details

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

section 133(6) of\nthe Act through ITB portal and physical services remained unresponsive.\nAccordingly, the AO purposed to disallow

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

6, 7\nITA No. 1056/Bang/2023\n2015-16\n2\nITA No. 1057/Bang/2023\n2016-17\n2\nITA No. 1058/Bang/2023\n2017-18\n2\nITA No. 1059/Bang/2023\n2018-19\n2\nITA No. 1060/Bang/2023\n2020-21\n2\n9. The Ld.AR submitted as under:\n9.1 The assessee is a State Level Federal Agriculture and Rural\nDevelopment Credit Society registered under the provision of the\nKarnataka

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 133(6) of the Act through ITB portal and physical services remained unresponsive. Accordingly, the AO purposed to disallow

AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANJAYANAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 133(6) of the Act issued to those entities but no reply received. Therefore, the AO has no option but to presume those entities as bogus. - The fact that Form 26 of Avexa does not reflect the entries in the name of the said parties which strengthens the view that those entities are entry providers only