NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

disallowing the claim of deduction of INR 1,12,23,296 under section 8oG of the Act by holding that amount paid out of Corporate Social Responsibility ('CSR') expenditure is ineligible for such deduction. 3. That the learned AO erred in stating that the amounts paid to eligible entities specified in section 8oG of the Act as a part

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed the sales promotion and advertisement expenses totally amounting to Rs. 44,33,55,403 [36,91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowed the sales promotion and advertisement expenses totally amounting to Rs. 44,33,55,403 [36,91,12,995 + 7,42,42,408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar

MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

1 (SC) at\npage 10)\n6.10 There are other plethora of case laws from various High\nCourts and various benches of the Tribunal for the same effect.\n6.11 Further, there was another angle to these cases when the\nCommissioner of Income Tax held the order of the Assessing Officer\nto be erroneous and at the conclusion of his order directs

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowed the alternative claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54F on the grounds that the assessee purchased two residential houses on 25.04.2010, and hence , on the date of transfer of original asset, the assessee was in possession of more than one residential house. The assessee had , however, stated before ld. CIT(A) that these two properties were merely registered

MAHESH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

1 (SC) at\npage 10)\n6.10 There are other plethora of case laws from various High\nCourts and various benches of the Tribunal for the same effect.\n6.11 Further, there was another angle to these cases when the\nCommissioner of Income Tax held the order of the Assessing Officer\nto be erroneous and at the conclusion of his order directs

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

256/- and made a suo moto disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the Act, amounting to ₹11,54,264/- only. The assessee explained that this self-determined disallowance was made after identifying expenses directly related to the exempt income. Therefore, it contended that the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules were not applicable

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

256/- and made a suo moto disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the Act, amounting to ₹11,54,264/- only. The assessee explained that this self-determined disallowance was made after identifying expenses directly related to the exempt income. Therefore, it contended that the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules were not applicable

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance over and above the returned income. 13.2 In identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 256 which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP reported in [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC), has categorically held that Explanation 5A to section

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

256/- respectively for both the\n Assessment Years. Assessee's submissions were not accepted by the AO and\nthe AO has applied section 14A r.w.r. 8D(ii) of the Rules and computed\ndisallowance after relying on various judgments as mentioned in his order.\n4.\nFurther, the AO noted that there is a difference in the interest income\nreported

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for. Accordingly, Grounds No.7 to 7.3 in ITA No.1044/Del/2014 pertaining

HIPE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LLP,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

256 (Karnataka)  CIT vs Devesh Agarwal [2017] 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bombay)  CIT vs Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Madras)  SmtVimladevi Parasmal Jain vs ITO [TS-66-ITAT-2025Mum] 6. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has itself disallowed under section 36(1

JAYARAM REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1:30 a.m. on 11.02.2017, which showed the high-pressure environment in which the statement was recorded. 11.10 The learned AR pointed out that the AO misinterpreted the assessee’s statement. The assessee had stated that the cars were used for both business and personal purposes, but nowhere he had admitted that the cars were not used for business