SRI. SINGONAHALLI CHIKKAREVANNA GANGADHARAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

disallowed since the situation contemplated by the first proviso viz. deduction and payment of tax in a subsequent year would never come about. Such unintended consequence has been sought to be taken care of by the second proviso inserted in section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2012. There can be no 15 Sri.Singonahalli Chikkarevanna Gangadharaiah. doubt that

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

ASSETZ INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') wherein the assessee's loss was determined at (-) Rs.1,69,30,260 in view of a disallowance

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

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.27.12.2016, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.5897,92,23,130 in view of the following additions / disallowances :- i) Disallowance of bad debts written off Rs.1143,68,00,000 ii) Disallowance of claim of provision for bad Rs.415,26,46,585 and doubtful

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT , BANGALORE

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

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

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") [Ground Nos. 13 to 17]. We had also submitted that Ground Nos. 18 to 20 are consequential and further that additional Ground No. 21 relating to applicable rate of Dividend Distribution Tax ("DDT") will have to covered by decision of Special Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal

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

disallowances made under section 40(a)(i). However, the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the argument forwarded by the assessee proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee without assigning any reasoning. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT-A is reproduced as under: “5.3.3 The facts of the case, assessment order and submissions of the appellant have been considered

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances made under section 40(a)(i). However, the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the argument forwarded by the assessee proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee without assigning any reasoning. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT-A is reproduced as under: “5.3.3 The facts of the case, assessment order and submissions of the appellant have been considered

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

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

LEMNISK PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 'VIZURY INTERACTIVE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD'),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance of recruitment charges paid for non- deduction of tax at source Under section 40(a)(i). b. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the payments made in relation to recruitment services provided by various vendors fails under Article 12 / Article 14 of the respective tax treaties as given below: Service provider Amount Country Article reference Bank Accout

LEMNISK PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 'VIZURY INTERACTIVE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED'),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance of recruitment charges paid for non- deduction of tax at source Under section 40(a)(i). b. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the payments made in relation to recruitment services provided by various vendors fails under Article 12 / Article 14 of the respective tax treaties as given below: Service provider Amount Country Article reference Bank Accout

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

260 ITR 80. 2. The notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as much as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer proposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and consequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

260 ITR 80. 2. The notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as much as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer proposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and consequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

260 ITR 80. 2. The notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as much as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer proposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and consequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings

M/S SUNQUEST INFORMATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevanshri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.552/Bang/2015

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act and all other grounds and additional grounds were not pressed for adjudication. 3. As far as ground Nos.9, 11 and 15 are concerned these grounds read as follows:- “9. The learned AO erred in adopting a threshold of 0% for applying the Related Party filter ('RPT") as per the directions

TECHNICOLOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 260-A of the Act before this Court. 58. The appeals filed by the Revenue are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs." 9. Having heard the learned. counsels for the parties, we are therefore of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present case also. The appeal filed by the Appellants- Revenue

TECHNICOLOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 260-A of the Act before this Court. 58. The appeals filed by the Revenue are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs." 9. Having heard the learned. counsels for the parties, we are therefore of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present case also. The appeal filed by the Appellants- Revenue

M/S SALESFORCE.COM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly these ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.3286/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowing the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Panel failed to appreciate that the Appellant had duly deducted tax at source on INR 24,586,946, where ever applicable, under section 194C/ 194J of the Act depending on the nature of the expense and deposited