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 191 to state that the payer (i.e. the assessee) cannot be regarded as assessee in default. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case Jagran Prakashan (345 ITR 288) to state that "onus is on the revenue to demonstrate the taxes have not been recovered from the person who had the primarily

SRI. SINGONAHALLI CHIKKAREVANNA GANGADHARAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

disallowed since the situation contemplated by the first proviso viz. deduction and payment of tax in a subsequent year would never come about. Such unintended consequence has been sought to be taken care of by the second proviso inserted in section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2012. There can be no 15 Sri.Singonahalli Chikkarevanna Gangadharaiah. doubt that

R. SRINIVAS RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Act. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sattar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO (1991) reported in 191

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowed without appreciating the fact that TDS was not deductible under section 194BB or 194B of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that identical issue arose the immediately preceding assessment year wherein this coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 1848 & 1850/Bang/2019 by order dated 18.12.2020 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2014-15 on identical

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowed without appreciating the fact that TDS was not deductible under section 194BB or 194B of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that identical issue arose the immediately preceding assessment year wherein this coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 1848 & 1850/Bang/2019 by order dated 18.12.2020 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2014-15 on identical

TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

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

191 ITR 667/59 Taxman 11. After referring to Rule 6DD, the Supreme Court held:— "7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40-A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of Rule 6-DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that

TEXO THE BUILDERS,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

disallowance is called for\nby invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act.\nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\n\n2.15.\nWe rely on decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case\nof Gurdas Garg v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bathinda\nHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana [2015] 63 taxmann.com

BANGALORE TRUF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

191 of the Act clearly states that a person can be held as an 'assessee in default' only when the recipient of income has also failed to pay such tax directly. In present case, however, the owners of the horses have declared such income in their tax returns. Hence, as per the provisions of Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, BANGALORE

Section 80IA of\nthe Act. As such the assessee has claimed the deduction in the A.Y. 2013-14 also\nwherein the AO had disallowed the claim with respect to non-aeronautical revenue\nbeing share of revenue from retail outlets, restaurant, bar and other refreshment\nfacilities etc. The disputed reached to this Tribunal in assessee's appeal as well\ncounter appeal

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

191 The learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234D of the Act consequent to the above adjustments. The appellant craves leave to add, alter and modify the above grounds during the course of the appeal. For the above and any other grounds which may be raised at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

sections. Accordingly, the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the yearend provision for expenses. 8. One more contention raised by Ld A.R is that the assessee has voluntarily disallowed the amount of yearend provision u/s 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) of the Act and hence there is no requirement to raise any demand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 80IA of the Act. As such the assessee has claimed the deduction in the A.Y. 2013-14 also wherein the AO had disallowed the claim with respect to non-aeronautical revenue being share of revenue from retail outlets, restaurant, bar and other refreshment facilities etc. The disputed reached to this Tribunal in assessee’s appeal as well counter appeal

M/S INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RAGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowed in the year of creation and again offering the same to tax would tantamount to double taxation. Levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act 6. 3,20,173 While determining the income-tax liability of the Appellant, the AO erred in re-computing interest under section 234B of the Act at INR 3,82,79,329 Initiation

ASHRAF NAFISA ALTHAF,MOODUBIDRI MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowed, though it was not charged to the profit and loss account and it attracts the provisions of section 43B of the Act and the present provisions of section 145A of the Act cannot be applied in view of non obstante clause in section 43B of the Act”. 4.7 Contrary to this, the Tribunal in the case

SRI KRISHNASA BHUTE ,HARIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, ITA No. 2444/Bang/18 is allowed, while ITA

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

disallowance made by the learned A.O. under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act has been deleted by the learned CIT (A) and the same has been confirmed by the learned ITAT, it cannot be said that the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act and/or erroneous. No substantial question of law arises. Hence, the present appeal

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ASTRA ZENCA PHARMA INDIA LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Section 143(2) of the Act was duly served upon the assessee. Since the assessee had several international transactions, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of arm’s length price (ALP). The TPO re- characterised the activities of the assessee as Clinical Research Organisation (CRO) doing clinical trial activity on its own account

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Section 143(2) of the Act was duly served upon the assessee. Since the assessee had several international transactions, a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of arm’s length price (ALP). The TPO re- characterised the activities of the assessee as Clinical Research Organisation (CRO) doing clinical trial activity on its own account

SRI. E. KRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

191 respectively total amounting to Rs.71,21,632. The assessee 4 Shri E Krishnappa was asked to show cause as to why the above cash book credit of deficient cash balance of Rs.71,21,632 should not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and brought to tax as income from other sources. In response the assessee filed

PANCHAMI DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowance of a sum of Rs. 1,31, 80,311/- u/s 40 (a)(ia) on account of non deduction of tax at source by appellant on payments made under the head Sales Promotion, Advertisement, Commission and Audit Fee. 9. In this context it may be noted that as per provisions of section 40 a) (ia), the appellant ought to have