MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

14) read with sections 45 and 48 of the Act?" 7.3.5. After taking into account the submissions of the either of the party and also the perusal of the orders of the authorities below, the Hon'ble Court had held as under: "5. We find from the record that the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal followed

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

section 68 of the Act is ruled out. Therefore, in view of the\nabove judgments, we observe that it is a settled law that opening\nbalance o unsecured loans coming from previous financial\nyears cannot be added u/s.68 of the Act to th income of the\nassessee. We further observe that even the PAN numbers as well\nas addresses

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

14. Furthermore, the assessee argued that section 68 of the Act could not be invoked in this case, as the nature

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

section 68 of the Act is ruled out. Therefore, in view of the\nabove judgments, we observe that it is a settled law that opening\nbalance o unsecured loans coming from previous financial\nyears cannot be added u/s.68 of the Act to th income of the\nassessee. We further observe that even the PAN numbers as well\nas addresses

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

14) read with sections 45 and 48 of the Act?" 7.3.5. After taking into account the submissions of the either of the party and also the perusal of the orders of the authorities below, the Hon'ble Court had held as under: "5. We find from the record that the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal followed

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

section 68 of the Act is ruled out. Therefore, in view of the\nabove judgments, we observe that it is a settled law that opening\nbalance o unsecured loans coming from previous financial\nyears cannot be added u/s.68 of the Act to th income of the\nassessee. We further observe that even the PAN numbers as well\nas addresses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

section 68 of the Act by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

section 68 of the Act by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

section 68 of the Act by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 68

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

68 of the Act in place of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act, the learned CIT (Appeals) on the merits of the issue, at para 3.16 of the order, held that the addition of Rs.1.25 Crores is to be made as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act instead of the addition as deemed dividend under Section

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.61 To 98/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2017-18 (Excluding March 2016)

section 14(a) (i)-(vii), payments for computer software sold/licensed on a CD/other physical media cannot be classed as a royalty. 20. The learned counsel for the Assessee cited the terms of the End user’s Licence Agreement (EULA) with some of the non-residents and submitted that as per the terms of the EULA, no right in copyright

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.61 To 98/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2017-18 (Excluding March 2016)

section 14(a) (i)-(vii), payments for computer software sold/licensed on a CD/other physical media cannot be classed as a royalty. 20. The learned counsel for the Assessee cited the terms of the End user’s Licence Agreement (EULA) with some of the non-residents and submitted that as per the terms of the EULA, no right in copyright

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

section 14(a) (i)-(vii), payments for computer software sold/licensed on a CD/other physical media cannot be classed as a royalty. 20. The learned counsel for the Assessee cited the terms of the End user’s Licence Agreement (EULA) with some of the non-residents and submitted that as per the terms of the EULA, no right in copyright

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.61 To 98/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2017-18 (Excluding March 2016)

section 14(a) (i)-(vii), payments for computer software sold/licensed on a CD/other physical media cannot be classed as a royalty. 20. The learned counsel for the Assessee cited the terms of the End user’s Licence Agreement (EULA) with some of the non-residents and submitted that as per the terms of the EULA, no right in copyright

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.61 To 98/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2017-18 (Excluding March 2016)

section 14(a) (i)-(vii), payments for computer software sold/licensed on a CD/other physical media cannot be classed as a royalty. 20. The learned counsel for the Assessee cited the terms of the End user’s Licence Agreement (EULA) with some of the non-residents and submitted that as per the terms of the EULA, no right in copyright

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.61 To 98/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2017-18 (Excluding March 2016)

section 14(a) (i)-(vii), payments for computer software sold/licensed on a CD/other physical media cannot be classed as a royalty. 20. The learned counsel for the Assessee cited the terms of the End user’s Licence Agreement (EULA) with some of the non-residents and submitted that as per the terms of the EULA, no right in copyright

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.61 To 98/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2017-18 (Excluding March 2016)

section 14(a) (i)-(vii), payments for computer software sold/licensed on a CD/other physical media cannot be classed as a royalty. 20. The learned counsel for the Assessee cited the terms of the End user’s Licence Agreement (EULA) with some of the non-residents and submitted that as per the terms of the EULA, no right in copyright

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.61 To 98/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2017-18 (Excluding March 2016)

section 14(a) (i)-(vii), payments for computer software sold/licensed on a CD/other physical media cannot be classed as a royalty. 20. The learned counsel for the Assessee cited the terms of the End user’s Licence Agreement (EULA) with some of the non-residents and submitted that as per the terms of the EULA, no right in copyright