M/S. FASHION MATRIX CLOTHING,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

68,312/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act. In the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act, the CPC disallowed the employees' contribution to PF and ESI to the tune of Rs.53,46,787/-. The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee did not remit the employees' contribution Page

SRI RAJANIKANTH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

68,795 being late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. The same was dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2020. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority. It was contended that assessee has paid the employees’ contribution prior to the due date

M/S. SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, UDUPI

In the result, grounds 6 and 9 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

va) 1008,00,06,232 4. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) 87,91,40,567 5. Provision for wage revision 240,00,00,000 Total disallowance / addition 2337,41,91,131 3. The Assessing Officer also assessed tax payable u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act at Rs.757,13,40,716 after making several additions to the book profits. 4. Aggrieved

SRI. AMIT KUMAR RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

68,35,620/- as against the returned income of Rs. 64,98,610/- and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 3,37,012/- u/s.36[1][va] of the Act, allegedly based upon the disallowance indicated in the Tax Audit Report of the Chartered Accountant in Form 3CD, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

va, tender. Since the sale proceeds for which cash was received from the custom was already admitted as income and if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. It is also record that

SMT. NANJAMMA,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

23,71,470/-, under the normal provisions, on account of the disallowance of Rs. 18,84,715/- made u/s.36[1][va] of the Act, based upon the details in the Tax Audit Report of the Chartered Accountant in Form 3CD, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] NFAC ought

SMT. NANJAMMA,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

23,71,470/-, under the normal provisions, on account of the disallowance of Rs. 18,84,715/- made u/s.36[1][va] of the Act, based upon the details in the Tax Audit Report of the Chartered Accountant in Form 3CD, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] NFAC ought

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

23. Xerox India Ltd vs DCIT New Delhi 198-204 Last para 203 & (ITA No.1580/Del/2010) (URO) (Delhi Tribunal) 204 24. GMR Vemagiri Power Generation Ltd vs DCIT 205-210 5 208 & (ITA No.3082/Mum/2013) (Mumbai Tribunal) M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 7 of 22 25. CIT vs Mitesh Impex (46 taxmann.com 30) 211-222 20 217 & (Gujarat High Court

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

23. Xerox India Ltd vs DCIT New Delhi 198-204 Last para 203 & (ITA No.1580/Del/2010) (URO) (Delhi Tribunal) 204 24. GMR Vemagiri Power Generation Ltd vs DCIT 205-210 5 208 & (ITA No.3082/Mum/2013) (Mumbai Tribunal) M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 7 of 22 25. CIT vs Mitesh Impex (46 taxmann.com 30) 211-222 20 217 & (Gujarat High Court

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

68,662/- against the returned income of Rs.54,95,175/-. 7. The Ld CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, erred in upholding the addition of Rs, 11,73,481/- made by the Ld AO towards disallowance of PF and ESI contribution of employees paid beyond the due date under section 36(1)(va) read with section

MARAPPA SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

68,455/-. The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee did not remit the employees' contribution to PF and ESI within the due date specified under the respective Acts. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee remitted the employees contribution

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 Taxman 426 (Kar.) 5.6 She also submitted that, in any event the addition on the basis of project maintenance advance receivable cannot be sustained as they are hypothetical income, which the assessee had not received during the years under consideration. She submitted that the figures consideration were only projections filed by the assessee at the instance of the Ld.AO

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 Taxman 426 (Kar.) 5.6 She also submitted that, in any event the addition on the basis of project maintenance advance receivable cannot be sustained as they are hypothetical income, which the assessee had not received during the years under consideration. She submitted that the figures consideration were only projections filed by the assessee at the instance of the Ld.AO

M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 Taxman 426 (Kar.) 5.6 She also submitted that, in any event the addition on the basis of project maintenance advance receivable cannot be sustained as they are hypothetical income, which the assessee had not received during the years under consideration. She submitted that the figures consideration were only projections filed by the assessee at the instance of the Ld.AO

CHANDRAMOULI,MYSURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

68,554/- and Rs.13,19,485/- being employees contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance, u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] respectively in AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing Security Services under the name and style Ganga Engineering Works

CHANDRAMOULI,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

68,554/- and Rs.13,19,485/- being employees contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance, u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] respectively in AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing Security Services under the name and style Ganga Engineering Works

ASIA SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

68,984. for A.Y.2018-2019 and Rs.66,37,014 for A.Y. 2019-2020. The reason for the difference between the returned income and the income determined u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act was on account of disallowance of late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 143(1

ASIA SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

68,984. for A.Y.2018-2019 and Rs.66,37,014 for A.Y. 2019-2020. The reason for the difference between the returned income and the income determined u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act was on account of disallowance of late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 143(1