JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

disallowed Rs.38,18,910/- being 30% of\nRs.1,27,29,699/- of the impugned expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of\nthe Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n46. Before the Id. CIT-A, the assessee argued that the payments were\nnot covered under section 194C

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

disallowed Rs.38,18,910/- being 30% of\nRs.1,27,29,699/- of the impugned expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of\nthe Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n46.\nBefore the Id. CIT-A, the assessee argued that the payments were\nnot covered under section 194C

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(4), BENGALURU

disallowed Rs.38,18,910/- being 30% of\nRs.1,27,29,699/- of the impugned expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of\nthe Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n46.\nBefore the Id. CIT-A, the assessee argued that the payments were\nnot covered under section 194C

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

disallowed Rs.38,18,910/- being 30% of\nRs.1,27,29,699/- of the impugned expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of\nthe Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n46. Before the Id. CIT-A, the assessee argued that the payments were\nnot covered under Section 194C

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

disallowed Rs.38,18,910/- being 30% of\nRs.1,27,29,699/- of the impugned expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of\nthe Act and added to the total income of the assessee.\n\n46. Before the Id. CIT-A, the assessee argued that the payments were\nnot covered under section 194C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 194C(7) does not result in disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) even as the benefit of section 194C(6) is available

AYUB ABDUL KHANDAR TAMATGAR,DHARWAD vs. JCIT, HUBLI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2010-11

194C of the Act, but the assessee failed to deduct tax at source. Hence the AO by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act disallowed

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

194C of the Act. There was only short deduction of TDS if so and not liable for disallowance of entire amount by invoking the provisions of section

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of sub-contracting chares of RS.16,21,851/- made by assessing authority on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source under section 194C

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of sub-contracting chares of RS.16,21,851/- made by assessing authority on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source under section 194C

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

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

disallowance wrongly made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs.69,11,858/- on the payments made to contractors without appreciating that the Appellant effected TDS under section 194C

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 194C of the Act. The assessee claimed that the party M/s Surya Team Management Pvt Ltd is a company and still registered with MCA. The party is also registered under the GST Act. Accordingly, the assessee argued that the genuineness of the payment cannot be doubted merely for the reason that the party was not found at their address

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A(3) whatsoever warranting disallowance under the said provision. As submitted earlier, there are 5 unions in the marker for supplying trucks for IMFL and beer transport from Palakkad District, namely: ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023 Page 18 of 23 a. Palakkad District Lorry Owners Association b. BMS Kanjikode Lorry Unit c. Palakkad District Lorry Transporting Agents Association d. Palakkad

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A(3) whatsoever warranting disallowance under the said provision. As submitted earlier, there are 5 unions in the marker for supplying trucks for IMFL and beer transport from Palakkad District, namely: ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023 Page 18 of 23 a. Palakkad District Lorry Owners Association b. BMS Kanjikode Lorry Unit c. Palakkad District Lorry Transporting Agents Association d. Palakkad

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A(3) whatsoever warranting disallowance under the said provision. As submitted earlier, there are 5 unions in the marker for supplying trucks for IMFL and beer transport from Palakkad District, namely: ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023 Page 18 of 23 a. Palakkad District Lorry Owners Association b. BMS Kanjikode Lorry Unit c. Palakkad District Lorry Transporting Agents Association d. Palakkad

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

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer without giving an opportunity to the learned assessing officer to verify the same. 113. The learned authorized representative vehemently submitted that CIT – A has considered the submission of the taxpayer before the learned assessing officer and on verification of the same detail deleted the addition following is on order in assessee

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

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer without giving an opportunity to the learned assessing officer to verify the same. 113. The learned authorized representative vehemently submitted that CIT – A has considered the submission of the taxpayer before the learned assessing officer and on verification of the same detail deleted the addition following is on order in assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7.1.1, BANGALORE vs. TALLY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2017-18

disallowances in arbitrary manner without considering the nature of the expenses. 25. The learned CIT-A/NFAC after considering the facts in totality accepted the assessee’s contention and deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that the assessee has provided entire details of telephone and internet charges. The assessee has also furnished the details of TDS deducted