M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

1) (vii) read with section 36 (2) of the act. This claim of the assessee is allowed based on the principles of the allowability of bad debts, which are otherwise allowable irrespective of the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, the learned assessing officer is directed to delete the disallowance of ₹ 83.59 Crores being ITA No.426 & 710/Bang/2023 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BAQNGALORE vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED , BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

1) (vii) read with section 36 (2) of the act. This claim of the assessee is allowed based on the principles of the allowability of bad debts, which are otherwise allowable irrespective of the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, the learned assessing officer is directed to delete the disallowance of ₹ 83.59 Crores being ITA No.426 & 710/Bang/2023 Page

M/S. SPL REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

221 from such person, unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person, without good and sufficient reasons, has failed to deduct and pay such tax. 8. As seen from the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) if the assessee is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub- section (1) of section

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

1) of the Act were issued. On perusal of the Form No.3CB filed by the 8 IT(TP)A No.2355/Bang/2019 assessee, the Assessing Officer found there are international transactions with its AEs, and with prior approval of Prin.CIT-3, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP).The assessee

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Sections 234B and 234C of the Act. 16. Without prejudice the disallowances as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) are arbitrary excessive and ought to be reduced substantially. 17. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” Brief facts of the case

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Sections 234B and 234C of the Act. 16. Without prejudice the disallowances as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) are arbitrary excessive and ought to be reduced substantially. 17. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” Brief facts of the case

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

221, CIT v Manubhai M Patel 296 ITR 143). 20. Thus, the scope of section 143(1) is restricted to adjustment of prima facie mistakes and omissions, which are apparent from what is available on record. In such case record would be constituted by the return of income as well as other data such as brought forward losses

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

disallowance of the relevant amount while computing income from business, is that the Assessee is liable to proceeded against u/s.201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. Under Sec.201(1) if the person responsible for paying to a non-resident or non- ITA No.749 to 752/B/12 and 1588 to 1591/B/12 Page 9 of 39 resident , any income chargeable to tax under

IBM INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. I.T.O. (TDS), BANGALORE

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

disallowance of the relevant amount while computing income from business, is that the Assessee is liable to proceeded against u/s.201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. Under Sec.201(1) if the person responsible for paying to a non-resident or non- ITA No.749 to 752/B/12 and 1588 to 1591/B/12 Page 9 of 39 resident , any income chargeable to tax under

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

1 )(c) of the Act for the above adjustments. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. IT(TP)A No.298/Bang/2024 Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 10 of 14 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal

GOPALAKRISHNA ASWINI KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.21 & 22, Autocrat Engineers, Cpc, Phase – 1, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Ablpk 6831 H Assessee By : Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

221 15-Aug-18 26-Nov-18 Provident fund 1,472 15-Aug-18 23-Feb-19 Provident fund 2,06,859 15-Sep-18 18-Sep-18 Provident fund 43,581 15-Sep-18 16-Jan-19 Provident fund 20,768 15-Sep-18 25-Apr-19 Provident fund 2,44,259 15-Oct-18 16-Oct-18 Provident

GOMTI RESEARCH AND PHARMACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

disallowing 30% of the deduction u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act even though the assessee had complied with the conditions mentioned in second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) and the first proviso to section 201(1) of the Act. 7. For the easy reference, we are extracting the relevant provisions which reads as follows: Second proviso to section

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (A) BANGALORE-6, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

221(1), and force him to abide by the TDS provisions. iii. The disallowance of certain expenditure made u/s 40(a)(ia) as a measure of punishment / penalty cannot give rise to benefit to the assessee by way of claiming deduction u/s 10A on such amount disallowed. Otherwise, it would lead to an absurd situation wherein, even after disallowance

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (A) BANGALORE-6, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

221(1), and force him to abide by the TDS provisions. iii. The disallowance of certain expenditure made u/s 40(a)(ia) as a measure of punishment / penalty cannot give rise to benefit to the assessee by way of claiming deduction u/s 10A on such amount disallowed. Otherwise, it would lead to an absurd situation wherein, even after disallowance

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT - PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

221/- that were already disallowed in the assessment year 2008-09 and claimed during the current year as deduction on account of subsequent TDS and remittances happened during the year under consideration. It is submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the submissions explaining the accounting policy followed, opening provisions that were reversed during the year

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

221/- that were already disallowed in the assessment year 2008-09 and claimed during the current year as deduction on account of subsequent TDS and remittances happened during the year under consideration. It is submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the submissions explaining the accounting policy followed, opening provisions that were reversed during the year

SHREE GOVERDHAN NATHJI HAVELI TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS-WARD-3 , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shree Goverdhan The Income Tax Nathji Haveli Trust, Officer, No. 15, Nehrunagar, Exemptions, Seshadripuram, Ward – 3, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aacts7617M Appellant Respondent

221 and CIT v Manubhai M Patel reported in 296 ITR 143. He thus submitted that the scope of section 143(1) is restricted to adjustment of prima facie mistakes and omissions, which are apparent from what is available on record. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessing officer carrying out processing of return of income u/s 143(1) cannot initiate

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee’s proprietary concern M/s. Great India Finance Corporation and their consequent carry forward for 8 years, the Ld. D.R. submitted that this issue has been addressed by the AO in para 4 of the assessment order which is reproduced as under:- “5. Income from M/s Great India Finance Corporation The assessee, his wife