ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

business opportunities and investment strategies. The A.O. noticed that the assessee has incurred huge expenditure for this division and claimed the same as expenditure. However, the assessee did not allocate proportionate amount of this expenditure to other units including the units which claimed deduction u/s 10A/10AA/10B of the Act. The A.O. noticed that, in assessment year 2009-10 the total

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

business opportunities and investment strategies. The A.O. noticed that the assessee has incurred huge expenditure for this division and claimed the same as expenditure. However, the assessee did not allocate proportionate amount of this expenditure to other units including the units which claimed deduction u/s 10A/10AA/10B of the Act. The A.O. noticed that, in assessment year 2009-10 the total

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

business loss under the head "Other sources" as provided under section 71 of the Income tax Act. 10. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has entertained a belief that what was claimed for set off against the income assessed u/s 68

HARIYAPPA KOTIAN,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

business income, then the provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked to tax the income as ‘deemed income’. The PCIT has stated that the AO ought to have treated the income as “unexplained cash credit” that should have been added u/s.68. This contention is not tenable since for the purpose of invoking section 68

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

Business ITR).\n\n9.2 Accordingly, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the\nassessee seeking certain information and documents. In response\nto the same, the assessee made its submissions by a letter dated\n15.02.2021. The assessee society claims that the deduction u/s\n80P(2)(d) on the interest earned from FDs with other co-operative\nsocieties

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

Income-\ntax Rules and Accounting Standard–26, without properly examining the\nnature, utility, and duration of the software licences. Such an approach,\nin our view, is not sustainable in law. The issue whether software\nexpenditure is capital or revenue has to be decided based on the\nfunctional test and the real nature of the advantage obtained, and not\nmerely

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UDUPI

section\n80P(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative\nbanks explicitly.\n6.\nThe CIT(A) erred in non appreciating/neglecting the fact that\nthe character or nature of interest income received on the\ninvestment or deposits from a scheduled bank or co-\noperative banks is the same. It is not a business income\ntaxable

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal to 8% of the gross receipts shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business. Section 44AD exempts the assessee from maintenance of books of accounts. Once the income

M/S. KARTHIK ESTATE,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

business income, then the provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked to tax the income as ‘deemed income’. The PCIT has stated that the AO ought to have treated the income as “unexplained cash credit” that should have been added u/s.68. This contention is not tenable since for the purpose of invoking section 68

ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption\npage

Income by the assessing officer by\ninvoking the section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) ought\nnot to have deleted the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act,\n1961.\n8. In the assessment order passed, the assessing officer has discussed\ntotal disallowance of Rs 6,13,95,000/- u/s 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UPPUNDA

section\n80P(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative\nbanks explicitly.\n6.\nThe CIT(A) erred in non appreciating/neglecting the fact that\nthe character or nature of interest income received on the\ninvestment or deposits from a scheduled bank or co-\noperative banks is the same. It is not a business income\ntaxable

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

68 as per the\nprovisions of Section 270AA of the Income tax Act, 1961 wherein\nthe due taxes had already been remitted to the revenue authorities.\nThe Appellant would like to draw the attention of Honourable\nmembers of ITAT that on a similar matter, the High Court of\nRajasthan in the case of GR Infra Projects Ltd. Vs ACIT

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

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

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

incomes from profits of the business of SEZ units in computing deduction under section 10AA for the reason that the said claim had been raised for the first time during the course of proceedings giving effect to the Tribunal's order dated 09.01.2023. i) Gain on forward contracts amounting to Rs. 68

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

business of processing and sale of granites. The assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 28/10/2017, subsequently, the return was revised u/s 139(5) of the Act on 23/11/2018 declaring same income. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessment was completed

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

68. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 69. Having considered the rival submission as well as relevant record, we are of the view that if this amount of Rs.22,444 is part of sum of Rs.2,22,444 being an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\non account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier\nyears and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be\ndeleted.\n4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of\n*24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total expenses

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

income offered as – “inadmissible” expenditure. We accordingly, direct the Ld.AO to verify the claim in the light of supporting documents. The Ld.AO shall verify the basic requirements that needs to be qualified for the voluntary TP adjustment to be eligible for deduction under section 10 A of the act, even though assessee has located it as ‘inadmissible expenses

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

Income by the assessing officer by invoking the section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have deleted the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 8. In the assessment order passed, the assessing officer has discussed total disallowance of Rs 6,13,95,000/- u/s 68