KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

46A in section 10 and the consequential amendment made to the Explanation to the 19th proviso of clause 23C of section 10 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the amendments would take effect from 01/04/2024 and therefore the same would be applicable from the A.Y. 2024-25. The Ld.CIT(A), therefore confirmed the orders of the AO insofar

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

disallowances; holding as under at page 11 of the impugned order :- “…. Even otherwise, the ledger extract and other evidences produced during the appellate proceedings are not admissible as none of the circumstances mentioned in clause (a) to clause (d) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 existed in the case of the appellant

DCIT vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

disallowances; holding as under at page 11 of the impugned order :- “…. Even otherwise, the ledger extract and other evidences produced during the appellate proceedings are not admissible as none of the circumstances mentioned in clause (a) to clause (d) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 existed in the case of the appellant

UNITED SPIRTIS LIMITED vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

disallowances; holding as under at page 11 of the impugned order :- “…. Even otherwise, the ledger extract and other evidences produced during the appellate proceedings are not admissible as none of the circumstances mentioned in clause (a) to clause (d) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 existed in the case of the appellant

DCIT vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

disallowances; holding as under at page 11 of the impugned order :- “…. Even otherwise, the ledger extract and other evidences produced during the appellate proceedings are not admissible as none of the circumstances mentioned in clause (a) to clause (d) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 existed in the case of the appellant

UNITED SPIRITS LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

disallowances; holding as under at page 11 of the impugned order :- “…. Even otherwise, the ledger extract and other evidences produced during the appellate proceedings are not admissible as none of the circumstances mentioned in clause (a) to clause (d) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 existed in the case of the appellant

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

46A, but not for setting aside the issue for fresh decision when all relevant material is already available on record. It is also pertinent note that vide Finance Act 2024 a proviso inserted below to section 251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

46A, but not for setting aside the issue for fresh decision when all relevant material is already available on record. It is also pertinent note that vide Finance Act 2024 a proviso inserted below to section 251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

46A, but not for setting aside the issue for fresh decision when all relevant material is already available on record. It is also pertinent note that vide Finance Act 2024 a proviso inserted below to section 251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back

M/S AQUARELL INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 37(1) of the Act and the finding given by the AO for disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) are apparently contradictory. Referring page No.208 of the paper book, the Ld. AR submitted that M/s. Levi Strauss SA (Pty) Ltd. Co. has addressed a letter to the M/s. Aquarelle International Ltd., acknowledging services rendered by the Indian company on introduction

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

46A, but not for setting aside the issue for fresh decision when all relevant material is already available on record. It is also pertinent note that vide Finance Act 2024 a proviso inserted below to section 251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

46A of the I.T. Rules and prayed for admission of the same. However, the CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence on the ground that why the same was not produced before the AO and upheld the disallowance. 36. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that these expenditure were incurred in the normal course of business towards repairs & maintenance

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

46A of the I.T. Rules and prayed for admission of the same. However, the CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence on the ground that why the same was not produced before the AO and upheld the disallowance. 36. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that these expenditure were incurred in the normal course of business towards repairs & maintenance

M/S. UNITED TELELINKS (BANGALOE) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. United Telelinks (Bangalore) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 39/13, 7Th Main, Hal 2Nd Stage, Income Tax, Appareddypalya, Indiranagar, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 038. Bangalore – 560 095. Pan : Aaacu 1901 H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ganesh S, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 6.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 7.1.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

disallowance of rental expenses of Rs.60,89,900/- under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). As far as this issue is concerned, the facts are that the assessee is a wholesale dealer in mobile phones. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had paid rent of Rs.77

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE vs. M/S MUURUGARAJENDRA OIL INDUSTRY PVT LTD , CHITRADURGA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

46A of the Income Tax Rules. iv. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order of the CIT(A) may be reversed and that assessment order be restored. v. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds on or before hearing of the appeal”. 3. The Assessee is a company engaged

SYED MOHAMMED RIZWAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(8), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Syed Mohammed Rizwan Vs The Income Tax Officer-2(2)(8) No. 193, 1St Main Road Bmtc Depot Sheshadripuram Koramangala Bangalore 560020 Bengaluru 560095 Pan – Afvpr3337R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-11, Bangalore Dated 22.07.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A) 11, Bangalore Is Bad In Law & 'Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Assessment Order Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2.1 The Learned Ao Erred In Making The Addition Under Section 68 Amounting To Rs. 3,99,46,180, Rs. 33,69,742 & .The Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 24(B) Amounting To Rs. 2,00,000 In An Undue, Haste & Mechanical Manner Without Properly Considering The Details & Documents Filed During The Assessment. 2.2 The Learned Ao Erred In Passing The Assessment Order & Erred In Making The Impugned Additions Without Issuing Any Show Cause Notice

disallowed the claim of interest under Section 24(b) of the Act. The AO concluded the assessment by making the above disallowances/additions. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 6. The assessee furnished additional evidences before the CIT(A) and as per Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules, the CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidences

ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

section 40(a)(ia) would not apply to disallow payments when TDS was not done and subsequently become taxable on account of a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd, 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, ITA No.1488 & 1660/Bang/2017 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

section 40(a)(ia) would not apply to disallow payments when TDS was not done and subsequently become taxable on account of a retrospective legislation. It has also referred to the decisions of the Delhi & Mumbai Tribunal in SMS Demag Pvt Ltd, 132 ITJ 498 & Sonic Biochem Extractions Pvt. Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 447, ITA No.1488 & 1660/Bang/2017 Page