VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU 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

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

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

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

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

6. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as stipulated under section 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed u/s 143(1) of the I T Act. In view of the above

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

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

MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

section 68 of the Act cannot be applied in this case as the assessee is not maintaining the books of accounts. Further, the P&L account and balance sheet filed by the assessee before the assessing authority cannot be considered as a books of accounts, as contemplated u/s 68 of the Act. Thus, the view of ours fortified

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

6. ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 23 of 29 It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as stipulated under section 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed

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

6. ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 23 of 29 It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as stipulated under section 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed

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

6. ITA Nos.1614 to 1616/Bang/2024 Page 23 of 29 It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as stipulated under section 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed

M/S DAVALAGIRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

195 (SC) wherein it was held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law but this amount of share money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under section

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

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

6. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as stipulated under section 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed u/s 143(1) of the I T Act. In view of the above

N 9 SPORTS & LEISURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU 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\nallowed

6.\nIt is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee\nhas filed return of income for the year under consideration but no\nassessment as stipulated under section 2(40) of the Act was made\nand the return of income was only processed u/s 143(1) of the I T\nAct. In view of the above

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed and all the stay petitions filed by the assessee\nstands dismissed as infructuous

68 Taxmann.com 8 (Delhi)\nPage 10 of 32\nS.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024\n5. Neo Sport Broadcast (P.) Ltd. [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 17\n(Bombay)\n6. Viacom18 Media (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 243\n(Mumbai -Trib.) - Para 9 page 656 of PB which has followed\nBom HC decision in Neo Sports

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

68 SOT 184 (Bangalore - Trib); and (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 up for discussion. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the fundamental and primary

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

68 SOT 184 (Bangalore - Trib); and (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 up for discussion. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the fundamental and primary