ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the excess payment exceeding the arm’s length price (ALP), amounting to Rs. 8,60,53,373/- only. 7.1 Besides the above, the AO observed that the activities of the trust were extending to the benefit of trustee’s relatives and the companies in which the trustees were interested. Therefore, the activities of the trust are against the principles

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

disallowance of claim of set off of loss arising in STPI/SEZ undertakings against “business income” generated from non-STPI/non-SEZ undertakings. STPI refers to “Software Technology Park” and SEZ refers to “Special Economic Zone”. This issue has been urged by the assessee in all the six years under consideration, viz., AY 2009-10 to 2014-15. 4.2 The facts relating

DCIT, 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

disallowance of claim of set off of loss arising in STPI/SEZ undertakings against “business income” generated from non-STPI/non-SEZ undertakings. STPI refers to “Software Technology Park” and SEZ refers to “Special Economic Zone”. This issue has been urged by the assessee in all the six years under consideration, viz., AY 2009-10 to 2014-15. 4.2 The facts relating

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

161 advances for which deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) was claimed in earlier years LESS: Amount written off in respect of Non- rural branches and for which deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) was claimed in earlier years a) NPA accounts in respect of which Rs.2,92,45,322 deduction is claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) @ 7.5% of the total 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

161 advances for which deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) was claimed in earlier years LESS: Amount written off in respect of Non- rural branches and for which deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) was claimed in earlier years a) NPA accounts in respect of which Rs.2,92,45,322 deduction is claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) @ 7.5% of the total income

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 (1) of the Act. 8.12.7. Based on above discussions and analysis, we are of opinion that contribution to SPV being 10%/15% of sale proceeds, under category A/B, is to be allowable expenditure for year under consideration.” 19. Facts leading to the disallowance is in the present case is similar and identical to the facts in the case

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 (1) of the Act. 8.12.7. Based on above discussions and analysis, we are of opinion that contribution to SPV being 10%/15% of sale proceeds, under category A/B, is to be allowable expenditure for year under consideration.” 19. Facts leading to the disallowance is in the present case is similar and identical to the facts in the case

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1 to Section 37 of the IT Act further support the order of the AO which states "For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1 to Section 37 of the IT Act further support the order of the AO which states "For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came up for discussion. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the fundamental and primary requirement of Section 9 of the Act is that the income should accrue or arise in India

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came up for discussion. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the fundamental and primary requirement of Section 9 of the Act is that the income should accrue or arise in India

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came up for discussion. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the fundamental and primary requirement of Section 9 of the Act is that the income should accrue or arise in India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came up for discussion. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the fundamental and primary requirement of Section 9 of the Act is that the income should accrue or arise in India

POWER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the additional ground is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

disallowance made by the CPC was in accordance with provisions of Section 143(1)(iv). The act mandates, before making an adjustment, an intimation has to be given to the assessee of such adjustment in writing or in electronic mode. The revenue could not produce evidence of sending the intimation to the assessee with regard to the proposed adjustment

MICROLAND LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

161/- ( which is as per the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act) as against Rs. 9,01,28,851/- as per revised return. Page 3 of 13 10. The Learned authorities below erred in restricting the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act to Rs. 2,71,12,299/- as against the claim

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

disallowances sustained. 8. First, we take up the appeal file by the ld. AO and also deal with connected grounds of appeal of assessee. 9. Ground No. 1 is general in nature, ground no 1 -2 of the appeal of the assessee, are general in nature, no arguments advanced and hence dismissed. 10. Ground no. 2 is against the deletion

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

disallowances sustained. 8. First, we take up the appeal file by the ld. AO and also deal with connected grounds of appeal of assessee. 9. Ground No. 1 is general in nature, ground no 1 -2 of the appeal of the assessee, are general in nature, no arguments advanced and hence dismissed. 10. Ground no. 2 is against the deletion

NALWAD PRABHU SOMASHEKHARAPPA,GADAG vs. ITO WARD 1, GADAG

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –

161,500 claimed under section 54F. Section 54F provides for deduction on capital gains if certain conditions are met regarding investment in a residential property. Since no evidence was furnished to support these conditions, the deduction was disallowed. 4. The assessment order was passed on 05/31/2021, disallowing the deduction of ₹1

M/S. TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

161 ITD 786 (Mumbai - Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came up for discussion. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the fundamental and primary requirement of Section 9 of the Act is that the income should accrue or arise in India