MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018]has categorically held that recording of the satisfaction is a sine qua non before making any disallowance where it has been held as under :- “41. Having regard to the language of Section

MANIPAL GLOBAL EDUCATION SERVICES PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018]has categorically held that recording of the satisfaction is a sine qua non before making any disallowance where it has been held as under :- “41. Having regard to the language of Section

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018]has categorically held that recording of the satisfaction is a sine qua non before making any disallowance where it has been held as under :- “41. Having regard to the language of Section

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

301 CTR 489 (SC)[12-02-2018]has categorically held that recording of the satisfaction is a sine qua non before making any disallowance where it has been held as under :- “41. Having regard to the language of Section

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

disallowed the expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee observing that there was no dispute that the services were in the nature of technical services, but would be covered under the Explanation clause contained in section 9(1)(vii)(b). This was upheld by the Tribunal. On appeal : Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Commissioner (Appeals

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

disallowed the expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee observing that there was no dispute that the services were in the nature of technical services, but would be covered under the Explanation clause contained in section 9(1)(vii)(b). This was upheld by the Tribunal. On appeal : Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Commissioner (Appeals

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

disallowed the expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee observing that there was no dispute that the services were in the nature of technical services, but would be covered under the Explanation clause contained in section 9(1)(vii)(b). This was upheld by the Tribunal. On appeal : Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Commissioner (Appeals

SOHANLAL KAWAR,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

section 57(iii) 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 4,74,301

SOHANLAL KAWAR,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WAR-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

section 57(iii) 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 4,74,301

SOHANLAL KAWAR ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,TPS, SHIMOGA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

section 57(iii) 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 4,74,301

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

disallowed sum of Rs.2,45 86,946/-under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, being the difference in the rent declared in 3CD report and as per statement of computation of income, on which TDS was not deducted. 12. Aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld.AO, assessee raised objections before DRP. DRP upheld the action of the Ld.TPO

XLHEALTH CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowed'. 14. That on the facts of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in not allowing set off of MAT credit of INR 63,00,690 under section 115JAA of the Act which was brought forward from earlier year(s). 15. That on the facts of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred

SRI.R.P.NARAYANA RAO,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

301 Mysore District. PAN AAOPN 7143 H Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri C.R. Nulvi, C.A. Respondent By : Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 23.02.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2017. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt.30.03.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysore

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD) CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S KURLON LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Kurlon Ltd., Income Tax (Osd), No. 301-303, North Block, Iii Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, Vs. Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road, Bmtc Depot, 6Th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 042. Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aabck 2150 K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Shri. C. Ramesh, Ca Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-4, Bengaluru, Dated 25.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Ground No.1 Is General. As Per Revised Grounds 2 To 5, The Grievance Of The Revenue Is Regarding Part Deletion Of The Disallowance Made By The Ao Under Section 14A R.W.R. 8D(Ii). In This Regard, Learned Dr Of The Revenue Supported The Assessment Order. He Submitted That This Issue Was Decided By Learned Cit(A) As Per Para 5.4 Of His Order & The Disallowance Was Deleted Page 2 Of 7

301-303, North Block, III Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), 2nd Floor, Vs. Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road, BMTC Depot, 6th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 042. Bengaluru – 560 095. PAN : AABCK 2150 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri. K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Assessee by : Shri. C. Ramesh, CA Date of hearing : 12.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowance of deduction under section 10AA: 3.1. The learned NFAC and the CIT(A) has erred in reducing the following incomes from profits of the business of SEZ units in computing deduction under section 1 OAA for the reason that the said incomes are not derived from the activity of software development and export. i) Interest on deposits with banks

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

301/- for A.Y. 2014-15 by allowing the Forex Loss as a revenue expenditure ignoring the proviso to section 43A of the Act any adjustment can be done only on final settlement of the liability. 10.1 The facts of the case as narrated in ITA No.3040/Bang/2018 are that during the previous year there was exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

301/- for A.Y. 2014-15 by allowing the Forex Loss as a revenue expenditure ignoring the proviso to section 43A of the Act any adjustment can be done only on final settlement of the liability. 10.1 The facts of the case as narrated in ITA No.3040/Bang/2018 are that during the previous year there was exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. DEVESH MOHAN NAYEL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Vs. Shri. Devesh M Nayel, Circle – 2(2)(1), 301, Rennaisance Regalia 95, Main Road, 15Th Cross, Bengaluru. Malleshwaram, Malleshwaram S.O, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru – 560 003. Pan : Aespn 6617 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Veerabasavana Gowda S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2023

301, Rennaisance Regalia 95, Main Road, 15th Cross, Bengaluru. Malleshwaram, Malleshwaram S.O, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru – 560 003. PAN : AESPN 6617 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Veerabasavana Gowda S, CA Revenue by : Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 04.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal