AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

section 68 of the Act.\n14.\nThe counsel of the Assessee has submitted before us that during FY\n2020-21 pertaining to AY 2021-22, the Assessee Company had issued 9,403\nCompulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) of face value Rs.100 each,\naggregating to Rs.9,40

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

section 68 of the Act.\n14.\nThe counsel of the Assessee has submitted before us that during FY\n2020-21 pertaining to AY 2021-22, the Assessee Company had issued 9,403\nCompulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) of face value Rs.100 each,\naggregating to Rs.9,40

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/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source. 13.4. The Ld.AR

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

section 68 of the Act.\n14.\nThe counsel of the Assessee has submitted before us that during FY\n2020-21 pertaining to AY 2021-22, the Assessee Company had issued 9,403\nCompulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) of face value Rs.100 each,\naggregating to Rs.9,40

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

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

section 40(a) and Page 32 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 40(a)(ia), the Taxpayer reverses accruals created in the previous year and accounts for expenses in connection with the subject accruals and complies with the applicable withholding tax. As a part of the proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the Taxpayer has also furnished sample extract of such

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT - PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

section 40(a) and Page 32 ITA Nos. 579 & 593/Bang/2015 40(a)(ia), the Taxpayer reverses accruals created in the previous year and accounts for expenses in connection with the subject accruals and complies with the applicable withholding tax. As a part of the proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the Taxpayer has also furnished sample extract of such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

68 or 69, in our opinion, have limited application in the case of nonresident." 18. Likewise, in the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy V. ACIT, Central Circle – II(2), Chennai [008 ITR (Trib) 18 (Chennai)], Chennai Bench has held as under: "A non-resident person having money in foreign country could not be called upon to pay income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

68 or 69, in our opinion, have limited application in the case of nonresident." 18. Likewise, in the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy V. ACIT, Central Circle – II(2), Chennai [008 ITR (Trib) 18 (Chennai)], Chennai Bench has held as under: "A non-resident person having money in foreign country could not be called upon to pay income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

68 or 69, in our opinion, have limited application in the case of nonresident." 18. Likewise, in the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy V. ACIT, Central Circle – II(2), Chennai [008 ITR (Trib) 18 (Chennai)], Chennai Bench has held as under: "A non-resident person having money in foreign country could not be called upon to pay income

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

68 of the Act in place of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act, the learned CIT (Appeals) on the merits of the issue, at para 3.16 of the order, held that the addition of Rs.1.25 Crores is to be made as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act instead of the addition as deemed dividend under Section

M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

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

Section 10AA of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 40 6. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed its objections before the DRP which vide its directions dated 28.09.2018, rejected the Assessee’s objections to a large extent while granting marginal relief. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated

M/S ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

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

Section 10AA of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.139 & 2560/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 40 6. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed its objections before the DRP which vide its directions dated 28.09.2018, rejected the Assessee’s objections to a large extent while granting marginal relief. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated

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

40(a)(ia)", "37(1)", "133(6)", "234A", "234B", "139", "143(3)", "142(1)", "144", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid, and whether additions made under Section 68

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

68", "37(1)", "40(a)(ia)", "10", "2(12A)", "127", "148(2)", "2(40)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section

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

68. Cash credits. - Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer

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

68", "37", "147", "148", "151", "153C", "133A", "143(3)", "143(1)", "2(40)" ], "issues": "Whether additions under Section 68

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

40. The DRP thus following decision of Hon’able Karnataka High Court in case of Yokogawa reported in (2012) 341 ITR 385 and Page 26 of 55 IT(TP)A No.517 & 570/Bang/2015 the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in case of Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2014) 151 ITD 454, held that, no TP adjustment would enter the computation