M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

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

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\n\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid\nappeal be allowed.\"\n\nPage

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

3 of 74\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\n4.5. The Learned AO was not justified in making any\ndisallowance under Section_14A_r/w Rule 8D(2)(ii) on the\nwrong notion that the disallowance is presumptive in\nnature even when the expenditure is not actually incurred.\n4.6. Without prejudice, the Lower Authorities were not\njustified in acting inconsistently

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE vs. L JAVERCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

3)The amount of under-reported income shall be,— (i)in a case where income has been assessed for the first time,— (a)if return has been furnished, the difference between the amount of income assessed and the amount of income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b)in a case where no return

CHIGURUVADA DILEEPKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section U/s 80E deduction. 8. Assessment proceedings was completed as under Faceless Assessment Scheme and the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed vide order dated 17.9.2022 with DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1045579614(1).Details of the additions made to the retuned income are tabulated hereunder for your ready reference. Page 11 ITA Nos. 832/Bang/2023 & 143/Bang/2024 Nature of Additions made Amount

CHIGURUVADA DILEEP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section U/s 80E deduction. 8. Assessment proceedings was completed as under Faceless Assessment Scheme and the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed vide order dated 17.9.2022 with DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2022-23/1045579614(1).Details of the additions made to the retuned income are tabulated hereunder for your ready reference. Page 11 ITA Nos. 832/Bang/2023 & 143/Bang/2024 Nature of Additions made Amount

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

disallowance of employees\ncontribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act treating as under reported\nunder sub section (2) of Section 270A of the Act whereas\ndisallowance of deduction of Health & education cess u/s 37 of the\nAct was considered under reported is in consequence of\nmisreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9) of the Act.\n5.2

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 270A of the Income Tax Act. As this matter is premature at this stage, it is dismissed accordingly as infructuous. 5. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in Grounds Nos. 4 to 13 of its appeal pertains to the action of the learned DRP/TPO/AO in benchmarking the payment of royalty at NIL. 6. The facts in brief

M/S. WINDSOR GARDENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

3) of the Act on 23.12.2019 by making two disallowances in the assessment order viz. (a) Disallowance of Depreciation amounting to Rs. 7,53,66,656/- and (b) disallowance of loss on sale of vehicles amounting to Rs.1,77,853/-. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings U/s 274 read with 270A of the Act with regard to disallowances made towards

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

disallowing the said expense without giving cognizance to the facts of the Appellant and the various judicial precedents relied on by the Appellant. 7.4. The Hon'ble DRP has erred on facts and in law in holding that ESOP/ Employee Share Based Plan (`ESBP') expense does not satisfy conditions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. K J FOUNDATION, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissionerof K.J. Foundation Income Tax 58/1 Thubarahalli Room No. 606, 6Th Floor Behind Sriram, Samruthi Vs. Unity Bldg. Annex Apartments, Whitefield Road P. Kalinga Rao Road Karnataka 500067 Karnataka 560027 Pan – Aabtk1178N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish R. Mody, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Cit(A)’) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case 2 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Observing That During The F.Y 2016- 17, The Assessee Had Paid Lease Rent Of Rs.9,58,28,710/-Only To Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd. Which Was A Specified Person U/S.13(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & That Such Payment

disallowance of the claim of exemption under Section 11 of the Act is in order when the trust had complied with all the conditions prescribed under the statute. Before going into the issue, first we will take a look on the findings given by the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) had given the following findings: - “5.1 In this case

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

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

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

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

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

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

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

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

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

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

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

section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

M/S. VISTAAR FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance let alone under-reporting or misreporting. M/s. Vistaar Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore 13.3. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the case of denial of deduction claimed under section 80G does not fall within the scope of section 270A (8) r.w.s. 270A(9)(e) of the IT Act. 6.1 The assessee