ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

2. Since in both the appeals, the issue involved are similar regarding addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 22 deleted by the CIT(A). The assessment was completed for the AY 2015-16 U/s 147/143(3) and for the AY 2016-17 was completed

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

68 of the Act. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the present case on hand. 11. Further the addition made by the AO towards interest payment u/s. 37also fails. In this case, the very purpose of reopening of the case is not sustainable, then subsequent addition made by the AO which are not part of the very basis

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,500 Bank Ltd 29,76,150 Tumkur Grain Merchant co-op 2,87,500 Bank Ltd 32,72,084 Bharat Co-op Bank (Mumbai)ltd 9,23,847 2,15,220 Subramanyeshwara co-op Bank Ltd 2,50,000 ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 16 of 44 Bharat

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

68 SOT 184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

68 SOT 184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

68 SOT 184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

68 SOT 184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came

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

195 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Page 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

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

195 Taxman 117, has observed as follows :-- 'Interpreting the provision as it stands and without adding or deducting from the words used by Parliament, it is clear that upon the formation of a reason to believe under section 147 and following the issuance of a notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer has the power to assess

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

68 of the Act. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the present case on hand. 11. Further the addition made by the AO towards interest payment u/s. 37also fails. In this case, the very purpose of reopening of the case is not sustainable, then subsequent addition made by the AO which are not part of the very basis

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

68 of the Act. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the present case on hand. 11. Further the addition made by the AO towards interest payment u/s. 37also fails. In this case, the very purpose of reopening of the case is not sustainable, then subsequent addition made by the AO which are not part of the very basis

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

68 of the Act. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the present case on hand. 11. Further the addition made by the AO towards interest payment u/s. 37also fails. In this case, the very purpose of reopening of the case is not sustainable, then subsequent addition made by the AO which are not part of the very basis

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

68 taxmann.com 8) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009)(310 ITR 320) were preferred over the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd (supra), in the absence of any decision rendered on this issue

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

68 and 69/69A/69C." It has been held that if there is no books of account maintained, no addition can be made u/s.68 of the Act. The above judgment is squarely applicable in the present case on hand. 11. Further the addition made by the AO towards interest payment u/s. 37also fails. In this case, the very purpose of reopening

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,25,501 under section 234B of the Act. 11.2. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in not granting credit for foreign taxes paid by the Appellant. 12. Relief 12.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto

M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

2) which are decided on the basis of section 42 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to section 9(1)(i) of the Act.) 13. In the instant case the non-resident assessees did not carry on any business operations in the taxable territories. They acted as selling agents outside India. The receipt in India

M/S. TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

2) which are decided on the basis of section 42 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to section 9(1)(i) of the Act.) 13. In the instant case the non-resident assessees did not carry on any business operations in the taxable territories. They acted as selling agents outside India. The receipt in India

M/S. TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

2) which are decided on the basis of section 42 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to section 9(1)(i) of the Act.) 13. In the instant case the non-resident assessees did not carry on any business operations in the taxable territories. They acted as selling agents outside India. The receipt in India

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

195 of the Act on the amount aid to J&P Coats Ltd. Page 20 IT(IT)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 20. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 21. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that, the view taken by authorities below is based on the amendment made to section