SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

274 of the Act, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in passing the penalty order u/s 271AAB assuming income offered by the appellant as undisclosed income, without considering the facts & circumstances

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

274, inter alia, considered the followed question of law\nfor adjudication.\n(IV) Whether losses of other 10A Units or non 10A Units can be set off against the profits of\n10A Units before deductions under Section 10A are effected?\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision held as under\n\n\"15. Sub-section 4 of Section

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

2)(ii) of the Rules. IT(TP)A No.311/Bang/2024 M/s. Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore Page 10 of 21 13.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP / Learned AO erred in not restricting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to INR 5,53,950 being exempt income earned

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowing an amount of Rs. 17,562,147 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for short-deduction of taxes. b) The Hon'ble DRP and Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is attracted in cases of non-deduction of taxes or for non-payment of taxes after deduction within

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

2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation on crates and pellets by categorizing the same as ‘Furniture & Fixtures’ instead of as ‘Plant and Machinery’. 8.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessment year 2015-16 in IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019

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

2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation on crates and pellets by categorizing the same as ‘Furniture & Fixtures’ instead of as ‘Plant and Machinery’. 8.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessment year 2015-16 in IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019

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

2) of the Act. 16. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of lower authorities. 17. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this is a protective addition which require to be remanded back since the ALP adjustment of sale promotion has gone back to the AO. The AO has to examine the issue as decided

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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in 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

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

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

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT - PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

274 read with section 271 of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit. substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

274 read with section 271 of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit. substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

disallowed in terms of explanation to\nsection 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income.\n6.\nAggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned\nCITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after\nconsidering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\n7.\nAggrieved from the Order

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

2)(a) of the Act. Therefore, even if we assume that the\npenalty levied for disallowance of deduction of Health & Education\ncess to be under reported in consequence of misreporting then also\nthe penalty levied in respect of disallowance of employee's\ncontribution to PF on account of “underreporting" of income is\nsquarely covered under the provisions contained in section

M/S INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RAGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

274 read NA Section 271 of the Act. Relief 8 a) The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the above grounds and also all relief NA consequential thereto. b) The Appellant desires leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of objections

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also explained the difference between employer’s contribution and employee’s contribution. The employer’s contribution falls under section 43B, while employees’ contribution is governed only by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, section 43B of the Act cannot override section

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also explained the difference between employer’s contribution and employee’s contribution. The employer’s contribution falls under section 43B, while employees’ contribution is governed only by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, section 43B of the Act cannot override section