SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

68 of the 1961 Act. The appellant/assessee adopted a three-pronged plea in support of the above contention; First, that assessment order refers to Section 145(2) of the 1961 Act. It should have mentioned Section 145(3) of the 1961 Act. For that, the appellant/assessee relies on the amendment of the 1961 Act which came into effect

GANGOTHRI VENTURES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

68 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no unexplained credit. Hence, section 69C/68 of the Act is not applicable. Section 69C of the Act is applicable with regard to any unexplained expenditure in the financial year which is in the opinion of the ld. AO not satisfactorily explained

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 28-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 400000.00 70 29-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 437000.00 71 30-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 2300000.00 301 31-03-2014 By Commercial Bldg at No 121/B Rajajinagar 8022600.00 302 35460000.0 31-03-2014 By Civil Works Incurred at Residential Property

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 28-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 400000.00 70 29-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 437000.00 71 30-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 2300000.00 301 31-03-2014 By Commercial Bldg at No 121/B Rajajinagar 8022600.00 302 35460000.0 31-03-2014 By Civil Works Incurred at Residential Property

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 28-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 400000.00 70 29-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 437000.00 71 30-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 2300000.00 301 31-03-2014 By Commercial Bldg at No 121/B Rajajinagar 8022600.00 302 35460000.0 31-03-2014 By Civil Works Incurred at Residential Property

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

68 28-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 400000.00 70 29-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 437000.00 71 30-03-2014 By Janatha Seva Co-Op Bank SB/5928 2300000.00 301 31-03-2014 By Commercial Bldg at No 121/B Rajajinagar 8022600.00 302 35460000.0 31-03-2014 By Civil Works Incurred at Residential Property

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANJAYANAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 months before the search carried out on the appellant assessee) in the case of M/s Avexa Corporation Pvt Ltd (hereafter M/s Avexa) a company based in Hyderabad. During the course of the survey, the statement of managing director of M/s Avexa namely Shri Jogeswar Rao Kurra was recorded under section 133A of the Act. The survey team

M/S INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RAGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

302 CTR 213. 3. Disallowance of provision for expenses amounting to INR 1,50,000 under section 37 of the Act The AO erred in disallowing the 'provision for contract charges' 50,985 created by the Appellant amounting to INR 1,50,000 by alleging that the same, being a provision, is an unascertained liability and contingent in nature

ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE vs. IRUNWAY INDIA PVT LTD, BANAGLORE

In the result, CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

302 days in filing the appeal before this\nTribunal by revenue. The revenue has filed a condonation petition\nstating that during the F.Y 202-23, there was backlog of huge\njudicial work in Department due to Covid Pandemic in FY\n2020-21 and 2021-22. During the month of March-2023,\nthere was huge time barring work regarding issue

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

68,94,858 The learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234B of the Act consequent to the above adjustments. 13. Calculation of Interest on resulting adjustment under section 234D of the Act: Rs. 1,98,82,191 The learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234D of the Act consequent

TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 256/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 – 12

302 Purchase of CBU 212,68,23,738 Sale of racks and other income 5,00,53,305 Sale of prototypes and trial parts 2,20,43,509 Sale of parts & components 433,42,86,791 Sale of manufactured CBU 1,97,56,687 Purchase of capital assets 398,19,62,065 Purchase of intangible fixed assets

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

68\nmonths before the search carried out on the appellant assessee) in the\ncase of M/s Avexa Corporation Pvt Ltd (hereafter M/s Avexa) a company\nbased in Hyderabad. During the course of the survey, the statement of\nmanaging director of M/s Avexa namely Shri Jogeswar Rao Kurra was\nrecorded under section 133A of the Act. The survey team

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

302\n145,69,30,219\nPayable due to AEs (B)\n14,68,08,788\n12,52,26,608\nNet receivables (C=A-B)\n229,10,72,514\n133,17,03,611\nAverage Net Receivable\nInterest Rate\n4.38%\nPeriod of delay (days)\n335\nInterest Amount\n7,28,17,800\n* Period of delay in 365 – allowed period of 30 days.\n3.8

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

68 had resigned on or before 25.01.2010, as such these employees did not complete period of 300 days in the employment and so, the salary of Rs 1,59,48,714/- paid to these employees cannot be considered for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act. 5 3.2 Similarly in relation to deduction claimed

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

302 was limited to the issue of goodwill being an intangible asset and does not override the restriction contained in the fifth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. 22.5 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the AO concluded that the intangible assets claimed by the assessee were not eligible for depreciation under section