DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

244A of the Act is consequential in nature. 14. Interest under section 234D 14.1. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The levy of interest under sections 234D of the Act is consequential in nature. 15. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 15.1. The learned AO erred

WEP PERIPHERALS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

section 2(22)(e) of the Wep Peripherals Ltd., Bangalore Page 16 of 18 Act. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) , wherein it was held as follows:- “The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S.A.Builders Vs. CIT" (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) in the context of expenditure

MASS FAB TECHNOLOGIES,BANGALORE vs. CIT(APPEALS), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

2. The Appellant denies itself liable to be assessed to total income of Rs. 13,48,407/-as against the returned income of NIL on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant denies itself to be liable to the disallowance of Rs. 13,48,407/-under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on the facts

ITEK PACKZ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

2. The Appellant denies itself liable to be assessed to total income of Rs. 13,48,407/-as against the returned income of NIL on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant denies itself to be liable to the disallowance of Rs. 13,48,407/-under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

2. The Appellant denies itself Liable to be taxed over and above the total business toss of Rs. 363,82,18,993/- declared by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] is not justified in upholding the disallowance made by the learned assessing officer on account of provision

M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

2. The Appellant denies itself Liable to be taxed over and above the total business toss of Rs. 363,82,18,993/- declared by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] is not justified in upholding the disallowance made by the learned assessing officer on account of provision

M/S. NSL SUGARS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

2. The expenditure, which is disallowed U/s 14A of the Act, cannot be made addition to book profits and the action taken by the learned Assessing Officer is contrary to the provisions of sec 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee contended that section 14A of the Act could not be read in section 115JB, as section 115JB

M/S. BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL AND RESEARCH LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

244A at Rs.3,56,889. A third rectification application was filed by the assessee on 22.6.2020 which was rejected by the CPC vide order dated 14.07.2020. 3. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the grounds pertaining to disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has raised the following

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

disallowances into the scope of adjustment of book profit is not permissible. 9. Short credit of tax deducted at source The learned AO erred in giving credit of tax deducted at source of INR 77,61,556 instead of INR 5,85,89,000 as claimed by the Appellant in Return of Income. 10. Consequential interest under section 244A

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

244A as consequential. Total tax effect 7,48,46,006/- 2. The assessee filed the following additional evidence along with application dated 5.9.2019 before us. “Sharing agreement dated 26.10.2016 between the assessee and developer regarding property No.123, Infantry Road, Bengaluru” 3. However, at the time of hearing, the assessee not pressed admission of additional evidence. Accordingly, additional evidence are dismissed

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