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

section 244A to be allowed when assessee is not at fault and on the amount of tax refund due 36. Delhi High Court in the case of Own Motion Vs 317-359 341,342, 16,18,26 CIT(352 ITR 273) 346,347, 27,33,34 355-356, 49,50 & 358-359 57 37. Circular No.20-D (XXII-22) dated

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

section 244A to be allowed when assessee is not at fault and on the amount of tax refund due 36. Delhi High Court in the case of Own Motion Vs 317-359 341,342, 16,18,26 CIT(352 ITR 273) 346,347, 27,33,34 355-356, 49,50 & 358-359 57 37. Circular No.20-D (XXII-22) dated

MR. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO, ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Section 143(1) of the Act.\n5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of the relief u/s 90 of the Act amounting to Rs.15,20,710/-.\n6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in concurring with the finding

SOLUTIONS INFINI TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2023-24

68,440.00 only. 5. The CPC processed the return of income of the assessee vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 1,95,26,186 on account of gratuity, which was erroneously reported in the tax audit report under section 43B of the Act, whereas factually no such provision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

244A of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case 6. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

244A of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case 6. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

244A of the Act. 11. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act The learned AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstance of the case by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind and modify

PI OPPORTUNITIES FUND-I,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

68,666 1,02,649.95 3 National Stock 16,33,50,000 1,22,51,250.00 Exchange of India Ltd. Total 1,34,77,531.88 2.1 Apart from the above, during the year under appeal, taxes of Rs. 6,10,764.25 were collected at source u/s 206C(1H) of the Act from the Assessee on purchase of unlisted shares

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

244A. The ld. CIT(A) /NFAC, however dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee in relation to claim of Infosys Limited Page 4 of 20 deduction under section 10AA of the Act on interest income and gains on forward contracts, stating that the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act does not entertain fresh claims being made

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S U.L. INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

244A and 234D which is consequential in nature. IT(TP)A Nos.574, 378/Bang/2015 655/Bang/2016 C.O. No.127/Bang/2015 Page 42 of 61 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind and modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents, facts and evidence before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. For the above and any other grounds which

UL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

244A and 234D which is consequential in nature. IT(TP)A Nos.574, 378/Bang/2015 655/Bang/2016 C.O. No.127/Bang/2015 Page 42 of 61 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind and modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents, facts and evidence before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. For the above and any other grounds which

M/S UL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

244A and 234D which is consequential in nature. IT(TP)A Nos.574, 378/Bang/2015 655/Bang/2016 C.O. No.127/Bang/2015 Page 42 of 61 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind and modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents, facts and evidence before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. For the above and any other grounds which

SHRI. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

244A thereon. The due date of filing the return was extended to 31/10/2018 for the Asst. year 2018-19. Further, the assessee was subjected to audit u/s.44AB of the Act and filed the tax audit report also on 25/09/2018 vide e-filing acknowledgement number 305271181250918. 3.1 Thereafter, the return of income of the assessee was processed and accordingly an intimation

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

244A of the Act on the amount of refund determined. Arithmetical error in computation of refund amount: 36. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above ground No. 34 and 35, the learned AO has erred in computing the total of tax refund (INR 16,01,166) and interest on refund IT(TP)A No.390/Bang/2021 Page

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

244A of the Act. 3. As far as the issue with regard to Transfer Pricing Adjustment and consequent addition to the total income in respect of an international transaction between the Assessee and its Associate Enterprise is concerned, the facts and circumstances under which the said issue arises for consideration are that the Assessee is a company incorporated under

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the Cross

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

244A of the Act. 3. As far as the issue with regard to Transfer Pricing Adjustment and consequent addition to the total income in respect of an international transaction between the Assessee and its Associate Enterprise is concerned, the facts and circumstances under which the said issue arises for consideration are that the Assessee is a company incorporated under

M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-2015...

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

68,264 was duly accounted in the books as other income. However, with regard to interest relating to A.Y. 2010- 11, the assessee stated that the interest granted amounting to Rs. 56,74,909 was duly accounted in earlier assessment year and the interest granted amounting to Rs. 1,53,504 has been accounted in the books during

M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-2015...

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

68,264 was duly accounted in the books as other income. However, with regard to interest relating to A.Y. 2010- 11, the assessee stated that the interest granted amounting to Rs. 56,74,909 was duly accounted in earlier assessment year and the interest granted amounting to Rs. 1,53,504 has been accounted in the books during