M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

172 (Allahabad)], has held thus: “8. Section 153A of the Act along with Section 153B and 153C replaced the “Post Search Block Assessment Scheme” in respect of any search under Section 132A or requisition under Section 132A made after 31.05.2003. CBDT explained these provisions through circular dated 5.9.2003, which is reported

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,190/- in its return, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, resulting in a disallowance of ₹5,13,01,761/- towards gratuity expenses under section 43B of the Act. This adjustment increased the assessee’s income to ₹ 63,40,69,950/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed and all the stay petitions filed by the assessee\nstands dismissed as infructuous

3 and 4 in the decision\nof Vodafone (supra) by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has\nanswered the question regarding the IUC charges not amounting\nto 'royalty'.\nPage 9 of 32\nS.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024\n5.3 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.AR submitted that\nthere is no \"use of process

HARIS KALANDAN MOHAMMED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

172-179/2009 dated 11th December, 2009 held that:- "20. The legal position which cannot be disputed is that when a particular authority is vested with the power to discharge statutory function, like the Commissioner who is empowered to pass orders under Section 263 of the Act, it is that authority which is to apply its independent mind

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 Lakh was received. Hence the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition to that extent and confirmed the addition for Rs. 4.59 crore. 49. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before us. The assessee is appeal before us against the confirmation addition for Rs. 4.59 crore whereas

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

3,17,31,606 under section 40/ 40(a)(i) which was paid / payable to M/s Forrester Research and M/s Gartner respectively. 15. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, no disallowance should be made under section 40/ 40(a)(i) in respect of the subscription charges paid / payable to M/s Forester Research

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, JAPAN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

3 and 4 in the decision\nof Vodafone (supra) by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has\nanswered the question regarding the IUC charges not amounting\nto 'royalty'.\nPage 9 of 32\nS.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024\n5.3 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.AR submitted that\nthere is no \"use of process

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

3 and 4 in the decision\nof Vodafone (supra) by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has\nanswered the question regarding the IUC charges not amounting\nto 'royalty'.\nPage 9 of 32\nS.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024\n5.3 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.AR submitted that\nthere is no \"use of process

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

68,00,000/- as confirmed, but\nmistakenly left out the case of Sri Rajesh Kamath, where ₹60,00,000/-\nwas backed by a settlement agreement but no relief was given.\n50.2 Furthermore, the learned AR argued that many of the other loans\nhad been fully repaid through banking channels, making separate\nconfirmations unnecessary. The learned AR stressed that no\nincriminating