DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) on 28.12.2021 wherein total income was assessed at Rs.9,20,360 considering the same as business

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) on 28.12.2021 wherein total income was assessed at Rs.9,20,360 considering the same as business

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) on 28.12.2021 wherein total income was assessed at Rs.9,20,360 considering the same as business

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) on 28.12.2021 wherein total income was assessed at Rs.9,20,360 considering the same as business

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) on 28.12.2021 wherein total income was assessed at Rs.9,20,360 considering the same as business

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) on 28.12.2021 wherein total income was assessed at Rs.9,20,360 considering the same as business

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10B showing that it is registered u/s. 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] declaring its total income at Nil. The above return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently picked up for scrutiny. The assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) on 28.12.2021 wherein total income was assessed at Rs.9,20,360 considering the same as business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

10B has declared the amount of income applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the Asst. year 2017-18 as Rs. 67,70,38,920/- [ Rs.55,56,54,057/- (revenue expenditure) + Rs. 8,11,20,826/- (capital expenditure)] which amounts to claim of double deduction & the same is accepted by the assessee on the I. Tax web portal

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

10B of the Act. 7.3 We note that the DRP did not express any opinion on this issue, and while passing the final assessment order, the Ld.AO confirmed the addition made in the draft assessment order. The Ld.AO confirmed the addition, as assessee could not furnish substantial details for deciding on the services rendered in the form of contract entered

HEWLETT-PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

10B of the Act. 7.3 We note that the DRP did not express any opinion on this issue, and while passing the final assessment order, the Ld.AO confirmed the addition made in the draft assessment order. The Ld.AO confirmed the addition, as assessee could not furnish substantial details for deciding on the services rendered in the form of contract entered

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 17. The Ground Nos.1 and 6 (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 17. The Ground Nos.1 and 6 (supra

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 17. The Ground Nos.1 and 6 (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 17. The Ground Nos.1 and 6 (supra

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

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

section 10AA and 10B of the IT Act on account of the various additions made to the profits from business of th-CATADellant (other than the transfer pricing addition). 13. That the Learned AO erred in facts and in law, in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

BIOCON LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

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

section 10AA and 10B of the IT Act on account of the various additions made to the profits from business of th-CATADellant (other than the transfer pricing addition). 13. That the Learned AO erred in facts and in law, in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

271(1)(c ) of the IT Act being part of the fifth issue also, he has decided the issue against the assessee and the assessee has no grievance on Page 7 of 13 these two issues. Thereafter, he pointed out that regarding the issues raised in sl. No.1,2 & 3 as noted by the ld. CIT(A) in para

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CA read with section 154 of the Act.” IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 42 of 62 8.1 These grounds are infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 9. Next ground Nos. 8 & 9 in AY in 2014-15 are with regard to payment towards technical service fee to it’s A.E. which