LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 68 of the Act. 19. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 16,22,06,666/-. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 68 of the Act. 19. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 16,22,06,666/-. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 68 of the Act. 19. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 16,22,06,666/-. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 68 of the Act. 19. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd of Rs. 16,22,06,666/-. 20. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

234D is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay any interest. The grounds mentioned above are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or, at the time of hearing of the appeal

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

234D is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay any interest. The grounds mentioned above are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or, at the time of hearing of the appeal

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

68,35,533. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, commission paid should be fully allowed as deduction. Page 5 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 Grounds on non reduction of communication expenses from total turnover while computing deduction under section 10AA 27. The learned assessing officer has erred in not reducing the communication expenses

MR. ASHOK BATHLA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act requires to be waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case. 17.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 18.In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal

MR. ASHOK BATHLA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act requires to be waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case. 17.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 18.In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal

RANJITPURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 69 of the Act. xiv. The Assessing Officer was correct in looking at the real transaction with respect to the share application money by lifting the veil and creating nexus with the investment to the payments made by the assessee as found and reflected in the seized documents. The failure on the part of the assessee to demonstrate

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT (Appeals) vide the impugned order dt.14.3.2016. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) – 11, Bangalore dt.14.3.2016 for Assessment Year 2005-06, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal, wherein it has raised the following grounds :- 1. “ That the order

M/S. FORETELL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the alternate claim

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

234D amounting to Rs. 3,03,850 be deleted.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 Foretell Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ("the assessee") filed return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 17/09/2016 with a returned loss of Rs. 22,02,848/ . The Ld. AO passed the order u/s. 143(3) by disallowing the trading loss

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

68,604/-; vi) 'Deduction be allowed in respect of depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1 , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

68,604/-; vi) 'Deduction be allowed in respect of depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

68,604/-; vi) 'Deduction be allowed in respect of depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

68,604/-; vi) 'Deduction be allowed in respect of depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D

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

234D of the Act. Penalty 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Ld. AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

234D of the Act. Penalty 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Ld. AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case