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

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY 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 George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED ,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 George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY 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 George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED ,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 George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY 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 George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. (a) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of INR 15,704,168 under section 14A of the Act read with Rule

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

250 of the Act dated 19/03/2020 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 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

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

250 of the Act dated 19/03/2020 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. BHARATH INFRA EXPORTS & IMPORTS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

Disallowance made under section 14A of the Act of Rs 8800/-: It is an undisputed fact that the appellant did not earn any income which is exempt from tax, the books of accounts of the appellant clearly establishes that no exempt income was earned by the appellant during the year.” Page 8 of 23 4. Against the order

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.

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