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

194J. Assessee as stated has already disallowed the entire amount in the computation of income as no TDS has been made. Once an amount was disallowed under section

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

disallowed the depreciation under\nsection 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under:\n“5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke\nthe amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to\ndefinition of ‘royalty' and to apply the same for the\npurpose of section 194J

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA -BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

disallowed the depreciation under\nsection 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under:\n“5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke\nthe amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to\ndefinition of ‘royalty' and to apply the same for the\npurpose of section 194J

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the depreciation under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the depreciation under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the depreciation under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the depreciation under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the depreciation under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) by observing as under: “5.5 Under the circumstances, I am constrained to invoke the amended provisions of section 9(1) with regard to definition of ‘royalty’ and to apply the same for the purpose of section 194J

ARJUN KESHAVA MURTHY PERIKAL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments was deleted due to lack of proper verification, opportunity, and examination of exceptions.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "40(a)(ia)", "40A(3)", "37(1)", "194J

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

194J of the Act. The assessee has deducted the TDS u/s 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

JAYARAM 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 for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed Rs. 38,18,910/- being 30% of Rs. 1,27,29,699/- of the impugned expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 46. Before the ld. CIT-A, the assessee argued that the payments were not covered under section 194C or 194J

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 or 194J

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

section of the society. The chances of recovery by the national bank being weaker by 10 per cent to the aggregate average, advances made in those rural branches is given deduction towards bad and doubtful debts. The Legislature has defined what is 'rural branch', as it is clear from the explanation. They have fixed the population of not more than

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

section of the society. The chances of recovery by the national bank being weaker by 10 per cent to the aggregate average, advances made in those rural branches is given deduction towards bad and doubtful debts. The Legislature has defined what is 'rural branch', as it is clear from the explanation. They have fixed the population of not more than

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

disallowance of expenses and depreciation on luxury cars, based on a statement recorded under section 132(4) without corroborative evidence, is justified? Whether payments for online advertising platforms are subject to TDS under section 194C or 194J

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 or 194J

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

section 194C or 194J of the Act, but the\nassessee failed. Hence, the AO disallowed Rs.38,18,910/- being 30% of\nRs.1

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

194J", "41(1)", "24" ], "issues": "Whether the expenses and depreciation claimed on luxury cars used for business promotion can be disallowed based solely on a statement recorded during search proceedings without corroborating evidence? Whether the disallowance made under Section