M/S KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 14A of the Act and Rule 8D of the Rules and making the disallowance of an amount of Rs. 60,30,758/- on the facts and circumstances of case. 11. The ld. AR drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial

ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT., LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Additional No.380, Opp. Cpwd Quarters, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Iii Block, Koramangala, Tax, Bengaluru. Range-Ii, Pan No : Aaaci 3805 Q Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Deepak Chopra, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Mathivanan, Cit(Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2021

section 80IB(10) in earlier years which was to the tune of Rs.27,80,57,341/-. However, the AO considered the deduction claimed by assessee in earlier years to the tune of Rs.28,99,548/-. Thus, the disallowance is in excess of Rs.1,18,83,207

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36(1)(va) towards disallowance of PF and ESI Contribution of Employees') b) Addition of Rs. 16,58,207

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36(1)(va) towards disallowance of PF and ESI Contribution of Employees') b) Addition of Rs. 16,58,207

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36(1)(va) towards disallowance of PF and ESI Contribution of Employees') b) Addition of Rs. 16,58,207

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

disallowed the claim of the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act for Rs. 207,99,58,356/- out of total

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

207/- that was capitalised in the books of accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO disallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions of section

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

207/- that was capitalised in the books of accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO disallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions of section

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

207/- that was capitalised in the books of accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO disallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions of section

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

207/- that was capitalised in the books of accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO disallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions of section

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

207/- that was capitalised in the books of accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO disallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions of 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

207/- that was capitalised in the books\nof accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the\nact. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO\ndisallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions\nof section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the act for non-deduction of tax at\nsource. The Ld.AO was of the opinion

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

disallowance of Rs. 26,99,432 under section 80JJAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the assessee claimed deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act of Rs. 52,75,173. According to the Assessing Officer, the additional wages means the wages paid 10 workmen

MOOG MOTION CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

section 90 read with Rule 128(9) is a procedural law and should not control the claim of FTC. 12. It was further submitted that even in the context of 80IA(7), 10A(5) etc, wherein there is specific provision for disallowance of deduction/exemption if audit report is not filed along with the return, various High Courts have taken

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

207/- that was capitalised in the books\nof accounts and depreciation at 60% was claimed u/s. 32 of the\nact. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO\ndisallowed the depreciation of software by invoking the provisions\nof section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the act for non-deduction of tax at\nsource. The Ld.AO was of the opinion

M/S. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

section 37 of the act and accordingly any interest payable for default of tedious payment cannot be allowed. 37. On the contrary the Ld.Sr.DR submitted that the interest on delayed payment is in the nature of penalty and therefore the disallowance has been rightly made. 38. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before

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

207/-. The AO made addition of Rs.1,06,13,329/- (disallowance of interest at Rs.99,02,829/- and disallowance of expenses at Rs.7,10,500/-) and finally he determined the income of (+) Rs.40,120/-. Thus, assessed income in this case is only Rs.40,120/- and as such jurisdiction in this case will definitely be of SMC. It is therefore

BACHIRA UTHAIAH POOVAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2018-19

section 90 read with Rule 128(9) is a procedural law and should not control the claim of FTC. 12. It was further submitted that even in the context of 80IA(7), 10A(5) etc, wherein there is specific provision for disallowance of deduction/exemption if audit report is not filed along with the return, various High Courts have taken

TESSOLVE SEMICONDUCTOR PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 90 read with Rule 128(9) is a procedural\nlaw and should not control the claim of FTC.\n12. It was further submitted that even in the context of 80IA(7),\n10A(5) etc, wherein there is specific provision for disallowance\nof deduction/exemption if audit report is not filed along with the\nreturn, various High Courts have taken