M/S TEXPORT CREATION,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

690/- under Section 234C of IT Act when the aforesaid disallowance is not legally sustainable. For the above grounds and for such

M/S DEEPAK CALES INDA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

690/- made u/s. 14A rws Rule 8D of the Act without appreciating that the provisions of sec. 14A of the Act ITA Nos. 1285 and 1286/Bang/2016 Page 4 of 12 were inapplicable to the facts of the appellant's case and therefore, the impugned disallowance made deserves to be deleted. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding

M/S DEEPAK CALES INDA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

690/- made u/s. 14A rws Rule 8D of the Act without appreciating that the provisions of sec. 14A of the Act ITA Nos. 1285 and 1286/Bang/2016 Page 4 of 12 were inapplicable to the facts of the appellant's case and therefore, the impugned disallowance made deserves to be deleted. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding

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

In the result, ground 34 is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.233/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. No.165/2, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Magnum, Circle – 7(1)(1), Doraisani Palya, Iim Post, Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru-560 076. Pan : Aafca 8051 P Appellant Respondent

690 under Section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Adjustment pertaining to Corporate Guarantee 2. The Learned AO/ Learned TPO / Hon’ble DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that the issuance of corporate guarantee is not an international transaction as per section 92B of the Act. 3. The Learned TPO/ Learned

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

section 37 of the Act. 11. Disallowance of sales expenses 11.1 The learned AO / Hon'ble DRP erred in disallowing sales expense amounting to NR 5,259,690

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 LTU, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.205/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Tejas Networks Limited The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.25, Jp Software Park Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1, Ltu V. Bangalore. Electronic City Phase-I Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aabct1670M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.S.Annamalai, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Final Assessment Orders Dated 31.01.2017 & 23.11.2017, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-2013. It(Tp)A No.764/Bang/2017 (Asst.Year 2012-2013) 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Design, Development, Manufacture Of Telecommunication Equipments. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return

section 37 of the Act. 11. Disallowance of sales expenses 11.1 The learned AO / Hon'ble DRP erred in disallowing sales expense amounting to NR 5,259,690

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed interest under both, i.e., section 36(1)(iii) and section 57(iii). On appeal: Held, that the assessee had borrowed the capital to purchase shares in I so as to have effective control of I in order to expand its real estate business. Thus, the investment in shares was nothing but expansion of business of the assessee. Therefore

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

disallowance of INR.12,690/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act for failure to deduct

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

MR. M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri M.J. Aravind, Nirvana, 329, 18Th Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Ideal Homes Layout, Phase I, Vs. Ward – 2 (3) (1), Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 098. Pan: Acbpa0889J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shyam Ramadhyani, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

disallowance u/s. 14A of the IT Act. Now we reproduce the details of expenses as has been noted by the AO on page no. 2 of the assessment order and the same is as under. The major heads on section 57 expenses are given below. S.No Head of Expense u/s 57 Rs. 1. PMS charges 13,26,690

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

690 under the normal provisions of the Act and book profits of Rs.191,53,33, 857 under the MAT provisions u/s. 115JB. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was duly served on the assessee. Since the assessee had international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE), a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer

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]

690 on definition of expansion and also in the light of the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Emdee Apparels vs. ACIT 54 SOT 600, particularly considering the availability of interest free own funds, the I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 CIT(A) was of the view that there was no case for disallowing interest on estimated

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]

690 on definition of expansion and also in the light of the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Emdee Apparels vs. ACIT 54 SOT 600, particularly considering the availability of interest free own funds, the I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 CIT(A) was of the view that there was no case for disallowing interest on estimated

SMT.ANUPAMA NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

disallowance of claim under Section 54F of 2 the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of the capital gains which was deposited in capital gain account. 3. The assessee is an individual and sold immovable property on 30.01.2012 for a consideration of Rs.1 Crore. The assessee purchased a plot at J.P. Nagar

NARAYANARAO V. KULKARNI vs. JCIT,

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Narayanrao V.Kulkarni, Viveknagar East, Bijapur-586101. … Appellant Pan:Ajkpk 6563 B Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bijapur Range Bijapur. … Respondent

690/-. 4. The disparity between returned income and the assessed income is on account of disallowance made under the provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , RAICHUR vs. SHRI G J FERNANDEZ , RAICHUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed and for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

690/- is profit on sale of scrap The P & L Account for next year ending on 31.03.2014 is available on page 10 of the same paper book with previous year figures i.e. for the year ended on 31.03.2013. As per the same, the assessee earned Rs. 160,97,975/- as other income for the year ended

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , RAICHUR vs. SHRI G J FERNANDEZ , RAICHUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed and for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

690/- is profit on sale of scrap The P & L Account for next year ending on 31.03.2014 is available on page 10 of the same paper book with previous year figures i.e. for the year ended on 31.03.2013. As per the same, the assessee earned Rs. 160,97,975/- as other income for the year ended

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

690,910/- (including\nRs.8 lakhs claimed under section 11(2) of the Act towards amount set apart for\nspecified objects). Form 10 statement under section 11(2) of the Act was filed\nelectronically on 27.09.2018. Subsequently, the assessee Trust filed revised return\non 02.01.2019. It is stated that revised return was filed by the assessee presuming\nit had not given