M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

BUHLER (INDIA) PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2011-12 M/S. Buhler India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 13-D, 12-D, 13C & 13-B, Income-Tax, Kiadb Indl. Area, Attibele, Circle 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 562 107. Bangalore. Pan : Aaacb 5987 A Appellant Respondent

section 14A of the Act 5.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee, inter alia, contends that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.9,28,747

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

section 80JJAA of the Act. Even after such disallowance, the AO has computed the assessed business income at ₹24,49,58,072/- and other income at ₹1,03,89,252/-. These two figures form the basis of the assessed total income of ₹25,53,47,324/-. Therefore, the figure of ₹33,39,41,406/- adopted

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

section 80JJAA of the Act. Even after such disallowance, the AO has computed the assessed business income at ₹24,49,58,072/- and other income at ₹1,03,89,252/-. These two figures form the basis of the assessed total income of ₹25,53,47,324/-. Therefore, the figure of ₹33,39,41,406/- adopted

ASHRAF NAFISA ALTHAF,MOODUBIDRI MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) being non deduction of TDS while towards audit fees. 3. Erred in facts and in law by making an adhoc addition toward personal use of commercial vehicle, without providing any basis for the same. Total tax effect: Rs.33,53,747

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)

747 is therefore allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Act. (Tax effect: INR 1,18,33,405) 15. Levy of interest under section 234A of the Act amounting to INR 52,58,48,793 IT(TP)A No.311/Bang/2024 M/s. Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore Page 11 of 21 15.1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case

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

disallowed the claim under\nsection 80JJAA of the Act and accordingly assessed the total income at\nRs.25,53,47,343/- i.e. business income of Rs.24,49,58,072/- and other\nincome of Rs.1,03,89,252/-. However, the AO while computing the tax\nliability in the computation attached to demand notice taken the\nbusiness income

M/S. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowed the deduction on the ground that the same was not derived from the business of the Assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the said income is treated as derived from the business activity for the purpose of the claim under Section 80IA of the Act. Upon holding so, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowed the deduction on the ground that the same was not derived from the business of the Assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the said income is treated as derived from the business activity for the purpose of the claim under Section 80IA of the Act. Upon holding so, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) TPS, MANGALURU vs. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

747/- based on a wrong belief that it is of previous year expense whereas it pertains to the F.Y 32352530 2. 2017-18. 5. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in allowing expenses pertaining to earlier year when the CIT(A) himself has stated that provisions or expenses for earlier Page 7 ITA No. 152/PAN/2023 & years arc not allowable

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

747/- based on a wrong belief that it is of previous year expense whereas it pertains to the F.Y 32352530 2. 2017-18. 5. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in allowing expenses pertaining to earlier year when the CIT(A) himself has stated that provisions or expenses for earlier Page 7 ITA No. 152/PAN/2023 & years arc not allowable

MARIS CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HULIYAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

747/-. 4. Before the A.O., the assessee agreed for all the above said four additions and hence the A.O. completed the assessment accordingly. Thereafter, the A.O. initiated the ITA 1672 OF 2019 MARIS CEMENTS PVT. LTD., HULIYAR Page 3 of 12 penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

BANGALORE RAJASHEKHARA MEGHA L/R OF LATE KARI THIMMEGOWDA RAJASHEKHARA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

section 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed\nreturns of income for all the years and thereafter the impugned\nassessments were framed.\n\n4. Here it is pertinent to mention that at the time of search, the\nassessee has made a surrender of Rs.13 crores for all the years\ncovered under search action.However, at the time of filing

BANGALORE RAJASHEKHARA MEGHA L/R OF LATE KARI THIMMEGOWDA RAJASHEKHARA ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1) , BENGALURU

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

section 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed\nreturns of income for all the years and thereafter the impugned\nassessments were framed.\n4. Here it is pertinent to mention that at the time of search, the\nassessee has made a surrender of Rs.13 crores for all the years\ncovered under search action.However, at the time of filing

M/S. KODAVA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,PONNAMPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeykodava Education Society Acit (Exemptions), Circle-1 Po Box No. 11, Halligattu Unity Building Annexe Vs. Ponnampet 571216 5Th Floor, Mission Road Pan – Aaaak1322J Bengaluru 560027 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishal Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2003-24/1061703575(1) Dated 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Impugned Order Of The Appellate Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Liable To Set Aside In So Far As The Same Is Incorrect, Irregular, Improper, Unlawful & Oppose To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2 That The Learned Appellate Commissioner Erred In Not Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Committed Certain Errors & Omissions In Filling Up The Return Of Income Which Ought To Have Been Substituted With The Correct Figures To Arrive At The Taxable Income, If Any & As Such The Impugned Order Is Liable To Set Aside.

disallowing the same while computing application of income on revenue expenses. As this contention was not raised before the AO, the case was remanded back by the ld. CIT(A) for a comprehensive report thereon. Before the AO the Assessee admitted that it had erred in claiming the entire depreciation of Rs.1,50,15,191/- as application of income

SRI NILESH N SHAH ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-8, BANGALORE

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

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

747 Total addition u/s 68 of the I.T.Act 6,98,692 3.1 On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.6,98,692. 3.2. Aggrieved by the confirmation of addition u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed a paper book comprising of 74 pages enclosing therein

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

disallowance of depreciation on goodwill made by the AO. The AO passed the final order of assessment as per the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Transfer Pricing adjustment 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee had the following international transactions:- Description Amount (INR) Provision of Software Development Service

M/S IDEAOBJECT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

747/- as payment towards export commission. It was submitted that the commission was paid to M/s. Infor Medix FZ LLC, a company registered in UAE. The A.O. took the view that the commission payment has been made by the assessee to the above said company for providing services which are in the nature of “technical services” mentioned in section