BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

27 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi85Mumbai60Bangalore27Chennai14Hyderabad9Kolkata6SC4Pune3Ahmedabad3Chandigarh2Guwahati2Panaji2Dehradun2Telangana1Cochin1Jaipur1Karnataka1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)34Section 92C25Transfer Pricing19Addition to Income18Comparables/TP18Disallowance13Section 36(1)(iii)12Section 144C(5)8Section 408

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) is only mandated if the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is attracted. In the present case, it is undisputed that proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is not attracted. (ii) There is no provision in section 36(1)(iii) governing the allowability of interest expenditure in case of an amalgamation or demerger

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

Section 115J8
Section 144C7
Section 43A7

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) is only mandated if the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is attracted. In the present case, it is undisputed that proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is not attracted. (ii) There is no provision in section 36(1)(iii) governing the allowability of interest expenditure in case of an amalgamation or demerger

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2355/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

disallowance under Section 40 (a)(i) of the Act for secondment of employees payment for non-deduction of TDS on Fees for Technical Services(FTS) Rs.48,35,91,738/-.Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed objections in Form 35A

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

ITA 394/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Richa .B, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 43A

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36; or (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived at after such addition or deduction shall

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

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

disallowances under section 14A and section 37 of the Act. It may be noted that the draft assessment order was passed post the date of condonation of delay in e-verification of the return. 3.9 The Assessee filed its objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') in Form 35A

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS (P) LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

section 92 are not applicable – Para 14.3 (case law filed during the hearing). Ground No.19- Price Reduction of Purchases 3.18 The Appellant follows annual price for various parts being supplied by different manufacturers and suppliers. Part prices are renegotiated on an annual basis. Initial price negotiation with Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt Ltd was completed in Dec 2011. However, the supplier

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 510/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

disallowance of expenditure on repairs and maintenance to buildings and repairs and maintenance on machinery, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of repairs to buildings as the assessee-company had failed to furnish details with regard to nature of expenditure incurred whereas in respect of repairs and maintenance on machinery and others, the CIT(A) has allowed

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 662/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

disallowance of expenditure on repairs and maintenance to buildings and repairs and maintenance on machinery, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of repairs to buildings as the assessee-company had failed to furnish details with regard to nature of expenditure incurred whereas in respect of repairs and maintenance on machinery and others, the CIT(A) has allowed

M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

disallowance under section 14A by invoking rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, without demonstrating as to how the claim of the Appellant regarding identification/allocation of expenses relatable to income not chargeable to tax is incorrect/insufficient. 10. The Learned DRP without examining the method and manner of computation of expenses attributed by the Appellant to the Investment activity erred

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

disallowance under section 14A by invoking rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, without demonstrating as to how the claim of the Appellant regarding identification/allocation of expenses relatable to income not chargeable to tax is incorrect/insufficient. 10. The Learned DRP without examining the method and manner of computation of expenses attributed by the Appellant to the Investment activity erred

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

disallowance shall be made under section 40(a) of the Act where the payee (in this case, the recipient of discounts) has remitted the taxes due in respect of the payments made towards the expenditure incurred by the payer. 15. Short grant of 15.1. The Ld. AO erred in granting lower amount of TDS credit, i.e., tax Credits

M/S INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 159/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Prestige Thirulakshmi, No.11, Mg Road, Bangalore-560001 ….Appellant Pan Aabcs 6967N Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan,& Smt Vidya kurup AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

35A before the DRP, whereas the DRP has passed the order under Section 144C (5) of the Act dt.25.09.2019. Further, the final assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act with total income of Rs.9, 86,91,148/- after considering the relief granted by the DRP in Transfer Pricing Adjustment. Aggrieved by the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S THOUGHT WORKS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43A

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36; or (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived at after such addition or deduction shall

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 580/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43A

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36; or (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived at after such addition or deduction shall

M/S TELSIMA COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 304/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Mahlhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 40Section 92C

section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs.6,62,774 upon the assessee in the relevant assessment year. 3.2 Additional grounds of appeal The assessee vide letter filed on 02.08.2018, filed Additional Grounds related to working capital adjustment which is as under: Transfer Pricing grounds 17.1 The learned AO/TPO/Hon’ble DRP has erred in not appreciating the fact that negative

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 78/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.78/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Zeomega Infotech Private Limited, 20-21, Rajalakshmi Plaza, Southend Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004 ….Appellant Pan Aaacz 1233F Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……Respondent. Circle 7(2)(1), Bangalore. Assessee By: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the act on 1.3.2016 with Transfer Pricing Adjustment and other disallowances. Whereas, the assessee has filed objections in Form 35A

M/S. KODIAK NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 284/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.284/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Kodiak Networks India Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Mfar Manyata Tech Park, Greenheart, Phase Iv, Nagawara, Bangalore-560 045 ….Appellant Pan Aacck 0978J Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan M, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92D

35A with the DRP, whereas the DRP has passed the 8 IT(TP)A No.284/Bang/2017 order granting partial relief with specific directions under Section 144 C(5) of the Act dt.13.12.2016. The A O after the receipt of the DRP order, has made addition of software expenses of Rs.15, 35,172/- as the assessee has failed to deduct

UL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

disallowed the TDS credit in respect of the entire advances considering that some portion of the advances were forming part of unbilled revenue and hence offered to tax. C. Denial of set-off of loss and unabsorbed deoresiation brought forward from AY 2009-10 4. The learned AO has erred in denying set off of brought forward business loss

M/S UL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

disallowed the TDS credit in respect of the entire advances considering that some portion of the advances were forming part of unbilled revenue and hence offered to tax. C. Denial of set-off of loss and unabsorbed deoresiation brought forward from AY 2009-10 4. The learned AO has erred in denying set off of brought forward business loss

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S U.L. INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

disallowed the TDS credit in respect of the entire advances considering that some portion of the advances were forming part of unbilled revenue and hence offered to tax. C. Denial of set-off of loss and unabsorbed deoresiation brought forward from AY 2009-10 4. The learned AO has erred in denying set off of brought forward business loss