GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5 of 14 have erred in law and on facts in rejecting the following comparable companies requested for inclusion by the Appellant during the course of TP assessment proceedings: (i) Informed Technologies India Limited (ii) R Systems International Limited (Segmental) (iii) Jindal Intellicom Limited (iv) Microland Limited (v) Ace BPO Services Private Limited (vi) Crystal Voxx Limited (vii) Microgenetic Systems

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

VI A, which is considered for computing 'Total Taxable Income". If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 19. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance made under section 10AA of the Act ignoring that since no new master service agreement was made, the benefit of claim u/s 10AA from the old SEZ cannot be allowed. 5. The CIT(A) erred in remitting the matter to assessing officer on issue relating to section 80G of the Act ignoring that in instant case assessee

M/S. PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

vi) of the Act expiring on or after 1st October, 2009 shall be deemed to have been extended in perpetuity unless specifically withdrawn. Further, any new approval obtained u/s 80G(5) of the Act on or after 1.10.2009 would be a one time approval, which would be valid till it is withdrawn. Therefore, in view of the above circular

M/S. PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

vi) of the Act expiring on or after 1st October, 2009 shall be deemed to have been extended in perpetuity unless specifically withdrawn. Further, any new approval obtained u/s 80G(5) of the Act on or after 1.10.2009 would be a one time approval, which would be valid till it is withdrawn. Therefore, in view of the above circular

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

5. On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order by making following additions in the hands of the assessee. Total income as per Rs.39,82,64,080/- ITR Add: TP addition u/s Rs.7,87,77,217/- 92CA Add: Disallowance Rs.5,50,000/- u/s 80G Add: Disallowance Rs.1

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

VI A, which is considered for computing 'Total Taxable Income". If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 20. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2016-17

5 of 10 Tax Act in Explanatory Memorandum to The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 is as under: "The existing provisions of section 37(1) of the Act provide that deduction for any expenditure, which is not mentioned specifically in section 30 to section 36 of the Act, shall be allowed if the same is incurred wholly and exclusively

FIRST AMERICAN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Years : 2016 – 17

VI-A for purpose of computing taxable income in the hands of assessee. Page 4 of 11 ITA 1762/Bang/2019 A. Y : 2016 – 17 9. Referring to section 80G(2) (iiihk) and (iiihl) she submitted that there is specific exclusion of certain payments which are listed under section 80G(1) of the Act, that are part of CSR responsibility not eligible

M/S. ALLEGIS SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016 – 17

VI A, which is considered for computing ‘Total Taxable Income”. If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 19. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G

JSW INDUSTRIAL GASES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

vi) of the Act expiring on or after 1st October, 2009 shall be deemed to have been extended in perpetuity unless specifically withdrawn. Further, any new approval obtained u/s 80G(5) of the Act on or after 1.10.2009 would be a onetime approval, which would be valid till it is withdrawn. Therefore, in view of the above circular

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

vi) of the Act and as such he withdrawn the approval granted to the assessee u/s 10(23C) of the Act. M/s. Srinivas Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Mangalore Page 26 of 50 5.3 Section 10(23C) of the Act reads as follows: 10(23C) Any income received by any person on behalf of – (i) The Prime Minister

M/S. SLING MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

VI A, which is considered for computing 'Total Taxable Income". If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 20. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G

ITI EDUCATION COMMITTEE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Iti Education Committee, Vidyamandir, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aaaai0748L … Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward - 1, Bengaluru … Respondent Appellant By : Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.A Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit(Dr)

disallowed and the net surplus generated is considered for taxation in the status of AOP.” Further, the Assessing Officer had not allowed carry forward of excess income over expenditure on the gross income but on the net income. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order, had confirmed the action

M/S. INFINERA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2589/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

VI A, which is considered for computing ‘Total Taxable Income”. If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 19. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G

AJIT VASANT PAI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

80G had got omitted. The Assessee received Intimation under Section 143(1)(a) dated June 2, 2018 accepting the Revised Return filed on 29.03.2018. In this Intimation also there is a mention that the due date of filing of the Return by the Assessee is 07/11/2017. 4. On November 7, 2018, the Assessee realised that he had forgotten to claim

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

VI-A were claimed correctly. 6.3 However, while processing the return, the CPC disallowed the set off of short -term capital loss arising from STT-paid transactions. As a result, the taxable income increased and the deduction under section 80G was also reduced. The assessee contended that this action of the CPC was not correct. 6.4 Relying on section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

vi) Disallowance of provision made towards leave availment under section 43B(f) of the Act vii) Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act viii) Disallowance of interest paid under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ix) Disallowance of forex loss on forward contracts x) Disallowance of depreciation on intangibles arising from purchase

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

80G of the Act was reduced by Rs. 16,28,980 and thereby total income increased by Rs. 16,28,980/- on which demand of Rs. 3,89,646/- was raised. 5. Against the intimation order, the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act which came to be rejected by the CPC vide order dated 14th March