M/S WYZMINDZ SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961) for AY 2014- 15. 5. The unpaid service tax liability cannot be disallowed under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the same is not claimed as expense in P&L account? 6. The learned officer has failed to appreciate the fact that the Service Tax amount has not been

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

68,43,155/-. This also supports our contention that\nthe assessments records were not verified by the Learned JCIT.\nh) The Learned JCIT gave an approval under Section 153D despite\nthe Learned AO's erroneous statement that the case of the\nassessee was centralized with the DCIT Central Circle-2, vide\nOrder of the Pr. CIT, Mangalore in F.No

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

145A\nof the Act – Rs. 68,53,999/-\nc) Addition for the contravention of section 40A(3) and insufficiency

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

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

145A and ICDS II\nwere equally applicable for the said impugned years.\n\n14. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO\nerred in making the impugned addition by presuming that\nreflection of Rs.20,59,84,960/- under “Any other item or\nitems of addition under section 28 to 44DA” of the revised\nreturn dated 09.02.2021 was towards

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

68 of Finance Act, 1994 read with rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the service tax becomes payable only on receipt of service tax from the client. Therefore, the amount of service tax included in bills but not received could not be disallowed under s. 43B’. After analysing the relevant provisions of Incometax Act as well as Service

MR.NANJUNDA RENUKA ARADHYA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

68 of Finance Act, 1994 read with rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the service tax becomes payable only on receipt of service tax from the client. Therefore, the amount of service tax included in bills but not received could not be disallowed under s. 43B’. After analysing the relevant provisions of Income tax Act as well as Service

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

68 of Finance Act, 1994 read with rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the service tax becomes payable only on receipt of service tax from the client. Therefore, the amount of service tax included in bills but not received could not be disallowed under s. 43B’. After analysing the relevant provisions of Income tax Act as well as Service

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

68 of Finance Act, 1994 read with rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the service tax becomes payable only on receipt of service tax from the client. Therefore, the amount of service tax included in bills but not received could not be disallowed under s. 43B’. After analysing the relevant provisions of Incometax Act as well as Service

M/S METRICSTREAM INFOTECH(INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

section 145A of the Act and the ratio laid down therein is in favour of assessee. 16. The ld. DR relied on the order of Pr.CIT and highlighted the fact that this aspect of service tax input receivable written off was not specifically enquired into by the AO before concluding the assessment proceedings, nor was any enquiry raised

M/S. CORPORATION BANK,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S & Ita No.1680/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2014-15

145A of ITA No.1109/Bang/2019, 1680/Bang/2018, 164/Pnj/2019 & 235/Pan/2018 Page 18 of 44 the Act with regard to CENVAT credit is not applicable to capital goods. The CIT(A) accepted this contention of the assessee and deleted the addition made by the AO to the extent of CENVAT credit of excise duty out of capital goods Rs.2,11,19,716. However

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 has considered these comparables under similar FAR like that of present assessee for assessment year AY 2009-10. In the aforesaid decision the issue raised was Page 29 of 52 IT(TP)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 against including these companies as comparable companies. The plea of the Assessee was that the aforesaid five companies are not functionally comparable with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, BELLARY vs. M/S AURO MINERALS , HOSPET

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and that of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

68,19,400 (Rs.17,27,28,707 – Rs.2,59,09,307). The AO completed the Assessment without questioning as to how the Assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs.2,59,09,307/-. So also, the Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.6,05,00,000 paid as penalty towards illegal mining, which was claimed and allowed as deduction

M/S AURO MINERALS ,HOSPET vs. JOINT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX BELLARY RANGE , BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and that of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

68,19,400 (Rs.17,27,28,707 – Rs.2,59,09,307). The AO completed the Assessment without questioning as to how the Assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs.2,59,09,307/-. So also, the Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.6,05,00,000 paid as penalty towards illegal mining, which was claimed and allowed as deduction

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

Section 37(1) of the Act for the reason that the said expenditure was incurred for maintaining uniformity in the franchisee stores and the Assessee neither owns nor derives any enduring benefit on such expenditure. 37. The AO classified the expenditure as capital in nature for the reasons that (i) the Form 3CD filed for AY 2012-13 noted

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

section which was involved in the customs documentation process. Therefore, the assessee justified payment to M/s.Indelox Services. The AO was however not convinced with the assessee’s explanation and expressed doubts about the quality of the contractors and particularly in view of the fact that no employees were present during the time of inspection he held that payment

M/S SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..CI.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

section which was involved in the customs documentation process. Therefore, the assessee justified payment to M/s.Indelox Services. The AO was however not convinced with the assessee’s explanation and expressed doubts about the quality of the contractors and particularly in view of the fact that no employees were present during the time of inspection he held that payment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

section which was involved in the customs documentation process. Therefore, the assessee justified payment to M/s.Indelox Services. The AO was however not convinced with the assessee’s explanation and expressed doubts about the quality of the contractors and particularly in view of the fact that no employees were present during the time of inspection he held that payment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SIGMA ALDRICH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

section which was involved in the customs documentation process. Therefore, the assessee justified payment to M/s.Indelox Services. The AO was however not convinced with the assessee’s explanation and expressed doubts about the quality of the contractors and particularly in view of the fact that no employees were present during the time of inspection he held that payment