VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

133(6)", "234A", "234B", "139", "143(3)", "142(1)", "144", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid, and whether additions made under Section 68

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

68, as the assessee had not maintained books of account. The additions made towards interest payment also failed on similar grounds.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "148", "147", "133A", "132(4)", "153C", "133(6

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

133 (Jharkhand)]. 6.12 As per the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, before invocation of the said section, proper enquiry is needed. In the case of the appellant, no proper enquiries were conducted by the AO, which is clearly evident from the assessment records. Section 68 empowers the Assessing Officer to make enquiry specificallytobesatisfiedregardingthecashcredit.lfheissatisfiedthattheseent riesarenotgenuine

SUN GARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1487/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Sun Gard Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Embassy Icon, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001 Pan Aaace 7476K Appellant Respondent.

133(6) of the Act, is not economically valid. In doing so, the learned TPO erred in rejecting companies such as Akshay Software Technologies Limited, Prithvi Information Solutions Limited, Silverline Technologies Limited, Zylog Systems Limited and VJIL Consulting Limited. 6.15 in not maintaining consistency in applying the filters of rejecting companies with abnormal fluctuating margin, diminishing revenue/ persistent losses

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) is not as per law. 12. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

TRIANZ HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. S. Jayaramani.T(Tp).A No1568/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09)

section 133(6) of the Act, software development constitutes 96% of its revenues. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer included this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., in the list of comparables as it qualified the functionality criterion. 17.1.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable submitting that this company

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

133(6). Hence, the averments of the CIT (A) are not as per law. 14. The Appellant objects the levy of interest u/s.234A and B consequential to the addition made by AO. 15. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing

M/S THOMSON REUTERS INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed/ treated as allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. S. Jayaraman

section 133(6) of the Act, software development constitutes 96% of its revenues. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer included this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., in the list of comparables as it qualified the functionality criterion. 17.1.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable submitting that this company

DCIT vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,182) in respect of the workmen employed in previous years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The learned Authorised Representatives of the appellant vide order-sheet noting dt. 24th Aug., 2004 agreed that the relief under s. 80JJAA in respect of the employees who joined in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 onwards only

SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

68,182) in respect of the workmen employed in previous years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The learned Authorised Representatives of the appellant vide order-sheet noting dt. 24th Aug., 2004 agreed that the relief under s. 80JJAA in respect of the employees who joined in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 onwards only

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act will not be justified. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer failed to perform his right empowered by the statute of issuing notice to the other parties under section 133(6

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 133(6) to call for information from comparable companies and make suitable adjustment on account of capacity utilisation differences. • TE Connectivity India P. Ltd. IT(TP)A 693/ Bang/2017 dated 25 / 11 / 2021- relevant para 11 & 12 at page 3156-3166 of case law compendium. IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore Page

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

133(6) of the\nAct to obtain information which was not available in public domain\nand relying on the same for comparability purposes;\n6.\nLd. AO/TPO pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred, in\nlaw and facts, by accepting/rejecting the following companies\nbased on unreasonable comparability criteria:\na) Accepting the following companies that cannot be considered

MCAFEE SOFTWARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in the

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

section 133(6) of the Act, software development constitutes 96% of its revenues. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer included this company i.e. Persistent Systems Ltd., in the list of comparables as it qualified the functionality criterion. 17.1.2 Before us, the assessee objected to the inclusion of this company as a comparable submitting that this company

ACTIANCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

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

133(6) has been issued to the companies that were chosen as comparable by the assessee as well as the TPO and on the basis of the replies received in response to such notices, certain inferences were drawn by the TPO. The action of the TPO in relying on some of those information was also challenged by the assessee

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

68,94,858 The learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234B of the Act consequent to the above adjustments. 13. Calculation of Interest on resulting adjustment under section 234D of the Act: Rs. 1,98,82,191 The learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234D of the Act consequent