M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 68 were invoked and made an addition of the total purchases of the fixed assets at Rs. 17,80,37,774/-. The issue was challenged before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel by objection no. 15 where the objection of the Assessee was allowed, and Ld. Assessing Officer was directed to examine the facts and consider the contentions made

THE MALNAD ARECANUT SYNDICATE PRIVATE LIMITED ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23

Section Particulars Amount (Rs.) 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Interest 72,270/- (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) 194H of the Act Commission 36,699/- 194Q Purchase 2,47,866/- 194I(b) 68

BIOCON LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2012-13

68,91,563/- u/s 201(1). He also charged interest of Rs.40,53,975/- u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the expenses aggregating to Rs.22,69,28,947/- are provisions made at the yearend at the time of finalisation of accounts for known expenses and losses (hereinafter called “yearend provisions

M/S. VOLVO GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VOLVO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

68 but no invoices Biocon. Accordingly, since no received from the amount was ultimately found to be vendors payable, there was no requirement to deduct TDS and hence, the provisions of section 201 were not applicable (refer Para 10.3 of Biocon). Page 7 of 31 3. Provision created for 9,46,447 The aforesaid payments pertain to 69 payments

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

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

194I nor 194C of the Act are attracted to lease financing of motor vehicles and therefore there could be no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In so far as the applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of lease rentals paid for lease of equipment is concerned

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

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

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

194I nor 194C of the Act are attracted to lease financing of motor vehicles and therefore there could be no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In so far as the applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of lease rentals paid for lease of equipment is concerned

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

section 194C and 194I of the act which show that the appointed value taxable which vendors. On examination of the tax statement, it was found that assessee has service income of ₹ 1566.26 crores whereas the admitted income of the assessee in the return of income was only ₹ 1285.46 crores therefore there was a difference of ₹ 280.80 crores. The assessee

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

section 194C and 194I of the act which show that the appointed value taxable which vendors. On examination of the tax statement, it was found that assessee has service income of ₹ 1566.26 crores whereas the admitted income of the assessee in the return of income was only ₹ 1285.46 crores therefore there was a difference of ₹ 280.80 crores. The assessee