M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 153A of the act and direct that, the disallowance of Rs.17,40,515/- made in 7-e assessment is not warranted and deleted.” 3. First we take up appeal for AY 2017-18 and the facts show that assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of diagnostic center, filed its return of income

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) considered the submission of the assessee and relying on the judgment of jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar [(2012) 345 ITR 389 (Kar.) observed

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

disallowance under Section 14A was deleted due to the AO's failure to record satisfaction. Brand building expenditure was allowed as revenue expenditure. Foreign tax credit related to Section 10AA income was allowed. The issue of deduction for foreign taxes not eligible for relief under Section 90/91 was remanded.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "10AA

SHRI. BOREGOWDA RAJANNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

disallowed this explanation and made an addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-admission due to non-compliance with deficiency letters, citing Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating on the merits of the case. It was held that dismissing

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,120,060 on the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. The learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to ₹ 43,815,000/– as ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 25 of 40 unexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section 69C of the act by erroneously treating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,120,060 on the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. The learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to ₹ 43,815,000/– as ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 25 of 40 unexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section 69C of the act by erroneously treating

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,120,060 on the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. The learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to ₹ 43,815,000/– as ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 25 of 40 unexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section 69C of the act by erroneously treating

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,120,060 on the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. The learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to ₹ 43,815,000/– as ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 25 of 40 unexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section 69C of the act by erroneously treating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD (LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

4,120,060 on the facts and circumstances of\nthe case.\niv.\nThe learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) was not\njustified in confirming the addition made by the learned\nassessing officer amounting to ₹ 43,815,000/- as\nPage 25 of 40\nITA Nos.410-412-169-170-\nCO 6/Bang/2024\nunexplained expenditure invoking the provisions of section\n69C of the act by erroneously treating

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

4 raised by assessee is in respect of disallowance made by Ld.AO under section 14 A of the Act. 8.1. At the outset Ld.AR submitted that there is no exempt income during the year under consideration and therefore no disallowance could be computed under section 14 A by applying rule 8D. In support of his contentions he placed reliance

BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE PAYERS TAX UNIT, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

250 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has\nraised following grounds of appeal:\ni.\nThe order of the Ld. CIT (A) is opposed to the law, facts, and circumstances of\nthe case.\nii.\nThe order is passed against the principle of natural justice and thus, liable to\nbe quashed.\niii.\nThe learned

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NIDLE,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

250 of the Act is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 2. The Appellant denies to be assessed to tax on total income as determined by the learned AO of Rs. 86,31,770/- as against the total income reported by the Appellant

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

250 8,936,047 4. B. Chandra Sekhar 4,486,736 9,425,895 5. D. Surya Narayana 9,065,925 6,612,583 6. K. Sree Rami Reddy 5,515,830 7,317,497 7. M. Venkateswara Naidu 7,207,180 5.204,610 8. A.Chakrapani 4.371,189 9.078,587 9. D.DharmaTeja 5,179,696 6.627,341 10. D.Avinashchowdary

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALLARI, FORT, BALLARI vs. VARALAKSHMI CREDIT SSN, KAMPLI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed ITA Nos.1940&1941/Bang/2024 Varalakshmi Credit SSN, Kampli Page 4 of 10 and also added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AO completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.5,55,36,954/- against the returned income of Rs. Nil u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALLARI, FORT, BALLARI vs. VARALAKSHMI CREDIT SSN, KAMPLI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed ITA Nos.1940&1941/Bang/2024 Varalakshmi Credit SSN, Kampli Page 4 of 10 and also added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AO completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.5,55,36,954/- against the returned income of Rs. Nil u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

disallowed the deduction under Section\n80P(2)(a)(i) holding that the appellant/assessee is neither a primary\nagricultural credit society nor a primary co-operative agricultural and\nrural development bank. The Ld.AO therein held that the appellant/assessee\nis a \"co-operative bank\" and thus, was hit by the provisions of Section\n80(P)(4) and was not entitled

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short\n\"The Act\").\nThe assessee has also filed cross objections against the said appeals\nof the revenue. Since the issues in all these appeals & COs are\ncommon, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed\nof by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.\n\n2. First

M/S. SLK SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

4,27,90,500.00 and added to the total income of the assessee. 13. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessee before the learned CIT(A) made detailed submission against the disallowances made by the AO. However, the Ld. CIT(A), has confirmed the addition made by Ld. AO. 14. Being aggrieved by the order