AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

disallowing the claim of exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Act with respect to the capital gains on the long term equity shares and have failed to take cognizance of the DEMAT statement, contract notes, etc submitted during the course of assessment proceedings on the facts and circumstances. ii. The authorities below have erred in treating the long

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowing the purchases made by the appellant while accepting the entire sales under the facts & circumstances of the case. 5 The appellant denies itself liable to be levied to interest under 2,04,65,598/- sections 234A, B & C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowing the purchases made by the appellant while accepting the entire sales under the facts & circumstances of the case. 5 The appellant denies itself liable to be levied to interest under 2,04,65,598/- sections 234A, B & C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowing the purchases made by the appellant while accepting the entire sales under the facts & circumstances of the case. 5 The appellant denies itself liable to be levied to interest under 2,04,65,598/- sections 234A, B & C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

B Nagendra, who happens to be one of the partners of assessee firm and\nthe place of business of the assesseewas also subjected to search. The assessee\nhas filed its return of income u/s 139 (1) declaring income of RS. 92,26910/-\nconsequent upon search conducted a notice under section 153C\n14.11.2011 was issued to the assessee, further

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

144 and Ashokbhai Chimanbhai : 56 ITR 42 , in absence of right to receive such income on account of SAD does not accrue in the relevant previous year. 24. The assessing officer, however, rejected the plea of the Assessee and held that (i) the assessee had right to receive the said income and had accounted the SAD refund as income

VIJAYA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

b) NPA account in respect of which Rs.15,91,33,959 deduction is claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) @ 10% of the Bad & Doubtful Debts in the AY 2003-04. c) NPA account in respect of which Rs.22,29,88,026 deduction is claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) @ 7.5% of the total income in the A.Y. 2004- 05 d) NPA account in respect

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

b) NPA account in respect of which Rs.15,91,33,959 deduction is claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) @ 10% of the Bad & Doubtful Debts in the AY 2003-04. c) NPA account in respect of which Rs.22,29,88,026 deduction is claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) @ 7.5% of the total income in the A.Y. 2004- 05 d) NPA account in respect

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:

144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing officer, whichever is earlier. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer

M/S. REGIONAL OILSEEDS GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,CHITRADURGA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under Page 21 of 23 ITA Nos. 1354 & 1355/Bang/2016 sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return

ARIBA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

b) pertains to the validity of the assessment on account of time baring and not having proper DIN. 3.1 At the outset, we note that the learned AR for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press the issue on hand. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee

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

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

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

B of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5th Floor JP Software Park ACIT, Circle-1, LTU Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5th Floor JP Software Park ACIT, Circle-1, LTU Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100 PAN No: AABCT1670M APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A Nos.468/Bang/2015 Assessment Year