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

68 amounting to Rs.4,07,88,170/ - without appreciating the fact that except for the identity, the assessee has not been able to establish the creditworthiness of the person advancing loan and also genuineness of the transaction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee has proved

M/S KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 68 of the Act. It is submitted that the Appellant has fulfilled the primary onus cast upon him i.e., identity of the person making the payment, creditworthiness and confirmation by the person making such payment. The authorities below failed to make any enquiries based on the information provided by the Appellant. The nature and source of investment made

ACIT vs. M/S ALVARES & THOMAS,

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

68 are satisfied. 12. As far as applicability of section 41(1) of the Act is concerned, the question before us is limited to the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act. The section in so far as it is relevant for our purpose is as below: “Profits chargeable to tax. 41. (1) Where an allowance

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

68 of IT Act in respective Assessment Years. Thereafter in Para 7 of the notice, the AO has stated that from the statement of Shri Jagdish Purohit, it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gains to various parties and since the assessee is one of the beneficiaries as per the AO, this

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 68 of the Act, cannot be invoked. The notice issued was not specific and was vague. The AO had sought reply without furnishing the evidence or information in his possession. The Ld.CIT-A who confirmed the order of the AO by reiterating the reasons given in the asst. order and ignored the argument of the assessee

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

section 153A would cover the pending returnITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 22 of 147 filed as well and would not be restricted to incriminating material

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jaico Realtors Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner No. 2650, Ground Floor, Of Income Tax, 37Th B Cross, Vs. 28Th Main, 9Th Block, Central Circle – 1 (4), Bangalore. Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 009. Pan: Aabcj8421G Appellant Respondent

68 amounting to Rs. 4,06,98,770/- without appreciating the fact that except for the identity, the assessee has not been able to establish the creditworthiness ofthe person advancing loan ITA No. 1444/Bang/2018& C.O. No. 106/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 13 and also genuineness of the transaction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RAGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

68,805. Addition of provision no longer required amounting to INR 5. 9,41,162 under section 37 of the Act. a) The AO erred in adding the provision for expense no longer required to the total income of the Appellant amounting to INR 9,41,162. 3,20,173

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 69 and made an addition of Rs.79,68,350/- on the alleged unaccounted purchases. Firstly, purchases are not investment on which sec 69 can be invoked. Secondly, there is no investment, be it purchases or otherwise so as to warrant an addition. The material relied on by the AO does not lead to any conclusion that the assessee

TUFFWUD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the filed by is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act as source were not explained and further addition of Rs.6,09,960/- was made u/s 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure incurred to obtain such unexplained cash credit. 5. Against such order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 10.01.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

68 had resigned on or before 25.01.2010, as such these employees did not complete period of 300 days in the employment and so, the salary of Rs 1,59,48,714/- paid to these employees cannot be considered for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act. 5 3.2 Similarly in relation to deduction claimed

M/S STERLING COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

173,600 where no refund has been issued to the Appellant. 14 Penalty under section 271(1)(C) The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15 Directions issued by the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The Honorable DRP has erred in law and on facts

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 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 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) 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 Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

68,60,16,563 from Whyte & Mackay B. Corporate Tax 4. Disallowance under section 14A of the 48,04,00,000 I.T.Act r.w.r 8D. 5. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 1,40,46,63,276 6. Disallowance of payments for promotion 44,33,55,403 and advertisement expenses. 7. Disallowance based on Project Spirits

M/S IKA INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

173 Payment of royalty 16,65,636 Payment of interest on loan Payment of personnel support fees 2,42,63,031 Purchase of fixed assets 18,84,045 68,71,417 Reimbursement of expenses to AE 4. In view of the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

173 (3)/44/2009-IT (A-1) DATED 20-9-2010 C to give more and more clarity on 80P deduction. Therefore, the assessee is assessed as status of AOP. From aforesaid discussion it is held that assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P (1) of I.T. Act and claiming disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice