KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

17A 161,87,55,286 Administration & other 18 11,47,83,323 expenses Depreciation 5 68,12,869 Sub total 175,02,45,026 Excess of income over 24,59,67,953 expenditure Less : Income related to prior 2,69,54,699 period (Net) Excess of Income over 27,29,22,652 Expenditure 6. The Ld.AO observed that assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. HARIS MUHAMMAD SAIT, BENGALURU

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld. AO is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

68 of the Act of Rs.2,96,97,039. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that out of the unsecured loan of Rs.2,96,97,039,/- Rs.2,63,34,857/- is advances received from various contractees. The assessee submitted copies of the ledger account from the books of assessee. With respect to the balance sundry creditors of Rs.33

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

section 133(6) that the same relate to the software development alone, this company cannot be considered as a proper comparable. So the ground of appeal of the appellant in relation to this company is allowed and the TPO / AO should exclude this company from the list of comparables." 11. The above discussion of the CIT(A) clearly explains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S HERBAL LIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

section 133(6) that the same relate to the software development alone, this company cannot be considered as a proper comparable. So the ground of appeal of the appellant in relation to this company is allowed and the TPO / AO should exclude this company from the list of comparables." 11. The above discussion of the CIT(A) clearly explains

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

section 133(6) that the same relate to the software development alone, this company cannot be considered as a proper comparable. So the ground of appeal of the appellant in relation to this company is allowed and the TPO / AO should exclude this company from the list of comparables." 11. The above discussion of the CIT(A) clearly explains

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

section 133(6) that the same relate to the software development alone, this company cannot be considered as a proper comparable. So the ground of appeal of the appellant in relation to this company is allowed and the TPO / AO should exclude this company from the list of comparables." 11. The above discussion of the CIT(A) clearly explains