RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

244A& 234 D of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234 B of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible

M/S. EY GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES INDIA LLP,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Ey Global Delivery The Deputy Commissioner Of Services India Llp, Income Tax, Rmz Infinity, Tower C, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle – 4(1)(1), Old Madras Road, Bengaluru. K. R. Puram, Bengaluru – 560 016. Pan : Aagfe 8006 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayan, Ca & Shri. Keerthi Narayan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

244A and has erred in not adjudicating this ground. The Ld. CIT(A) on a wrong presumption has dismissed the 9) Ground of Appeal treating it to as consequential in nature. Grounds in relation to additional levy of Interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in dismissing the Ground of Appeal

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

disallowing royalty expense on the basis that it is capital in nature, without appreciating that royalty was paid as a percentage of sales, for use of technical know-how of the group companies, and hence, ought to be allowed under section 37 of the Act. 22. The learned AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in concluding that

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowances were made in the assessment order resulting in an assessed Infosys Limited Page 3 of 20 total income of Rs. 11407,97,47,950/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 17.01.2017 against the said order. The CIT(A)/NFAC passed an order on 21.12.2017, partly allowing the appeal. Again aggrieved

E. R. CONSULTING ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2020-21

244A is subject to adjustment of arrear demand, if any, u/s. 245 3. The Refund is issued by the State Bank of India (Refund Banker) on behalf of the Income Tax Department. The details of the status of the Refund can be obtained from website (www.tin-nsdl.com) under "Status of Tax Refunds. In case of any difficulty or delay

MR. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO, ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Section 143(1) of the Act.\n5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of the relief u/s 90 of the Act amounting to Rs.15,20,710/-.\n6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in concurring with the finding

MICROLAND LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

244A of the Act. 14. For the above and other grounds/ additional grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1. The assessee is a Limited Company engaged

SHRI. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

244A thereon. The due date of filing the return was extended to 31/10/2018 for the Asst. year 2018-19. Further, the assessee was subjected to audit u/s.44AB of the Act and filed the tax audit report also on 25/09/2018 vide e-filing acknowledgement number 305271181250918. 3.1 Thereafter, the return of income of the assessee was processed and accordingly an intimation

M/S. HASHAM INVESTMENTS & TRADING CO PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

244A of Rs. 2,00,386 were granted. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 31.08.2015 was issued. The AO verified the background and recorded the following finding of facts in the assessment order, the Company had returned a loss of Rs. 21.73 Crores for the AY 2014 15, the Company

M/S. CAST SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

244A of the Act thereon. The CPC without providing the reasonable opportunity had rejected the rectified return filed by the assessee. Thereafter, the return of income originally filed by the assessee on 24.10.2018 was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of “foreign outward remittance” and accordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued calling

M/S. KLUBER LUBRICATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2019-20

244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2.1 The assessee vide letter dated 21/03/2024 has also raised the additional ground of appeal, which is reproduced as under: “2. "That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in assessing the Appellant's total income at a higher tax rate of 30% as against 25% by exercising

QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE :LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BELAGAVI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.279/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowing an amount of INR 1,51,32,000 under Sec. 14Aof the Act read with rule 8D of the Income-tax rules, 1962, towards expenses incurred to earned exempt dividend income from mutual funds; without appreciating the fact that investments in mutual funds were made out of internal accruals and not from borrowed funds of the Company

YUVA CHINTANA FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

244A amounting to Rs. 961/- thereon although on page no.15 of the intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the CPC had stated the incorrect claim made by the assessee u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act as under: “The trust or institution registered u/s. 12A / 12AA / 12AB has not E-filed the audit report in form

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

244A thereon. During the financial year 2016-17 relevant for the Asst. year 2017- 18, the assessee along with his son Sri M. Sumanth had jointly sold an immovable property vide sale deed registered as document No.1401/2016-17 on 30.6.2016 for a total sale consideration of Rs.85,43,100/-, out of which Rs.20 lakhs was received in cash. The assessee owns

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. EVRY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision. Therefore, the AO is directed to consider the claim of the appellant and if found correct, the foreign tax credit be allowed to the appellant. If such credit results in refund, the same be given to the appellant alongwith interest applicable u/s. 244A of the Act. As the appellant