INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowance of Rs.8,75,000 towards unsecured loan and deciding the matter based on additional evidences submitted by the assessee in spite of the fact that the assessee could not produce any documents during the assessment proceedings which is contravened to the provision of Rule 46A(3). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed a sum of Rs.51,74,991/-. 4.10 Under the provisions of section 263

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed a sum of Rs.51,74,991/-. 4.10 Under the provisions of section 263

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance under section 14 A of the act to the extent of ₹ 6,452,727/–. xxii. On 22 October 2018 , the principal Commissioner of income tax issued a notice under section 263 of the act to the appellant which was responded to on 3 December 2018. The learned PCIT passed an order under section 263 of the act on 28th

JANATA TRADERS,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263 in the following cases: (i) The order sought to be revised contains error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it. Janata Traders, Gadag Page 13 of 29 (ii) The order sought to be revised proceeds on incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law. In the same category fall orders passed

MOOG MOTION CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

1) Supreme Court Cases 21) wherein it observed that: "The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some others may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

Disallowance of payments based on Project Spirit Report (ground 8) (Corporate Tax Issue) 13. Brief facts of the issue raised in the above ground are as follows: During the financial year 2014-2015, the Board of Directors of the assessee had mandated an inquiry in relation 49 IT(TP)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/s.United Spirits Limited. to matters connected with audit qualifications

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

1. General grounds: 1.1 The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax: Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru CPr. CIT') erred in invoking revision proceedings under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('Act') by setting aside the assessment order passed by the National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi ('AO') under section 143(3) of the Act as being erroneous and prejudicial

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

disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D a sum of Rs.1,92,74,539/- in the normal computation cannot be added back while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act the assessee submits that the amount of calculation is not correct. The correct amount is mentioned in the order passed under section 263

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

disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D a sum of Rs.1,92,74,539/- in the normal computation cannot be added back while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act the assessee submits that the amount of calculation is not correct. The correct amount is mentioned in the order passed under section 263

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

disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D a sum of Rs.1,92,74,539/- in the normal computation cannot be added back while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act the assessee submits that the amount of calculation is not correct. The correct amount is mentioned in the order passed under section 263

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

disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D a sum of Rs.1,92,74,539/- in the normal computation cannot be added back while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act the assessee submits that the amount of calculation is not correct. The correct amount is mentioned in the order passed under section 263

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

disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D a sum of Rs.1,92,74,539/- in the normal computation cannot be added back while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act the assessee submits that the amount of calculation is not correct. The correct amount is mentioned in the order passed under section 263

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

disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D a sum of Rs.1,92,74,539/- in the normal computation cannot be added back while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act the assessee submits that the amount of calculation is not correct. The correct amount is mentioned in the order passed under section 263

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

disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D a sum of Rs.1,92,74,539/- in the normal computation cannot be added back while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act the assessee submits that the amount of calculation is not correct. The correct amount is mentioned in the order passed under section 263

SRI RAMASEVA BAHUSARA KSHARIYA CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. PR. CIT, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

disallowances, and other determinations made by the AO on facts and Law, however, for an appeal against a revision order u/s 263 of the Act, the Tribunal is essentially confine itself to examine (1) Whether the very assumption of 263 jurisdiction is valid (2) whether the PCIT’s conclusion on “erroneous and prejudicial” are sustainable in law and (3) Whether

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

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 (1) of the Act. 8.12.7. Based on above discussions and analysis, we are of opinion that contribution to SPV being 10%/15% of sale proceeds, under category A/B, is to be allowable expenditure for year under consideration.” 19. Facts leading to the disallowance is in the present case is similar and identical to the facts in the case