M H SUDHARSHAN REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri M H Sudharshan Reddy, 20, 1St H Cross, 8Th Main, S S Layout, Shardha Colony, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore-560 079 ….Appellant. Pan Alips 3131M Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(2)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri R. Chandrashekar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Jcit (D.R.)

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has debited commission charges, land development cost and hire charges without deduction of tax and the payments exceeds the specified amounts under Section 194C

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

194C. Once the provisions of sec.194C is involved, all these payments can also be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This line of action is not considered by the AO. The disallowance made by the AO is based on documents found during the survey. Therefore, the view of the appellant that disallowances were made on surmise, assumption

BASAVA ROAWAYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,SEDAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GULBARGA, GULBARGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

Section Amount (Rs.) Ultratech Cement 194C 12,41,23,184 Vasavadatta Cement 194C 5,68,01,670 . ITA No.565 /Bang/2025 Page 3 of 16 Total 18,09,24,854 6. Considering the above receipts of Rs. 18,09,24,854 reflected in Form 26AS, the AO proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee by applying a profit rate

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise .increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 6.2.4 Accordingly, it was proposed to the assessee that the disallowance u/s 14A will be made by invoking

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

194C of the Act however it has been deducted under section 194H of the Act under the head commission which is completely wrong. The learned Counsel further referred to Paper Book Page No. 22 which is submission made before AO in which it has been clarified that Rs.12 lakhs is included in the turnover of Rs.24,50,000/- and assessee

SANDEEP VIMALCHAND GADIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13

section 194C of the Act of Rs.5,520/- and assessee has not filed return of income. Therefore, the entire receipt shown in Form 26AS was treated as profit under the head “Profit and Gains of Business or Profession”. Accordingly, the assessment was completed on 26.11.2024. Assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 04.02.2020 with a delay. However, the learned

PERFECT ROOFING,HASSAN vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HASSAN

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

194C which is 30% of Rs.69,656. Accordingly total income was assessed at Rs.63,27,377 in the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144(b) of the Act. 3. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) issued two notices on 05.02.2024 and 19.02.204 fixing hearing on 20.02.24 and 26.02.2024 and ex parte order was passed on 27.02.2024 dismissing the appeal for non- prosecution

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments.” The other material referred to herein, it is submitted, includes material or evidence gathered during survey proceedings and the assessment proceedings. It is submitted that material unearthed during survey proceedings albeit contemporaneous with the search proceedings in question itself, especially sworn statements, which, in the absence

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments.” The other material referred to herein, it is submitted, includes material or evidence gathered during survey proceedings and the assessment proceedings. It is submitted that material unearthed during survey proceedings albeit contemporaneous with the search proceedings in question itself, especially sworn statements, which, in the absence

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments.” The other material referred to herein, it is submitted, includes material or evidence gathered during survey proceedings and the assessment proceedings. It is submitted that material unearthed during survey proceedings albeit contemporaneous with the search proceedings in question itself, especially sworn statements, which, in the absence

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

reassessed on an annual basis. For the purpose of the valuation of the defective parts it was explained that it is refurbished valuation as Net repair the standard and cannot be less than zero. Net repair standard cost is the cost to repair a defective part subject to applicable warranty relief. This methodology was explained and verified by learned

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

reassessed on an annual basis. For the purpose of the valuation of the defective parts it was explained that it is refurbished valuation as Net repair the standard and cannot be less than zero. Net repair standard cost is the cost to repair a defective part subject to applicable warranty relief. This methodology was explained and verified by learned