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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

4,39,98,000/- whereas the Revenue is in appeal against the relief provided by the AO based on additional evidence in ground No. (iv) in ITA No. 2130/Bang/2024. 88. The learned AR before us argued that during the assessment, the credits raised by the appellant were genuine, made through banking channels, and properly recorded in the regular books

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

172/- made u/s.69 rws 115BBE of the Act on account of interest accrued on loan given to Century Woods under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- as unexplained investment being the cash paid towards purchase of the land

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

172/- made u/s.69 rws 115BBE of the Act on account of interest accrued on loan given to Century Woods under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- as unexplained investment being the cash paid towards purchase of the land

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

172/- made u/s.69 rws 115BBE of the Act on account of interest accrued on loan given to Century Woods under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- as unexplained investment being the cash paid towards purchase of the land

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

172/- made u/s.69 rws 115BBE of the Act on account of interest accrued on loan given to Century Woods under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- as unexplained investment being the cash paid towards purchase of the land

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

4 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 18. Without prejudice, software payments made to residents totally amounting to Rs. 30,23,602was not liable for TDS under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the 1st proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with 1st proviso to section 40(a)(i). 19. On the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU vs. KUDLUR RAMASWAMY SATHYANARAYANA, MYSURU

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey**

172 (Raj.); *Kailahben Manharlal Chokshi* v. *CIT* [2008] 174 Taxman 466/[2010] 328 ITR 411 (Guj.); *CIT* v. *Omprakash K. Jain* [2009] 178 Taxman 179/[2010] 322 ITR 362 (Bom.); *Mehta Parikh & Co.* v. *CIT* [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC); *Shree Ganesh Trading Co.* v. *CIT* [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170/214 Taxman 262/257 CTR 159 (Jhar.); *CIT* v. *Shri Ramdas Motor

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

172 80,29,755 50,27,52,133 1,54,02,66,248 4% 24,18,142 % of margin of SRC. by estimating at 8% of GP on Work 5% 3% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 2% 4% 8% Margin to be considered by SRC 5.18,533 3,86,003 4