M/S WYZMINDZ SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 43B has no application. However, he was of the view that the fact remains that service tax collected by the assessee but not paid to the Government account up-to the end of the financial year or even up-to the date of filing of the return of income and, thus, by not including this amount

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

section 43B has no application. However, he was of the view that the fact remains that service tax collected by the assessee but not paid to the Government account up-to the end of the financial year or even up-to the date of filing of the return of income and, thus, by not including this amount

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,020/- and tax liability of Rs.14,08,015/- was paid and there was refund of Rs. 42,340/- . ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 22` 4.2. The Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC has sent communication under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Since the Authorized Representative does

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,020/- and tax liability of Rs.14,08,015/- was paid and there was refund of Rs. 42,340/- . ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 22` 4.2. The Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC has sent communication under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Since the Authorized Representative does

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,020/- and tax liability of Rs.14,08,015/- was paid and there was refund of Rs. 42,340/- . ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 22` 4.2. The Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC has sent communication under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Since the Authorized Representative does

M/S IDS NEXT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

section 43B has no application. However, he was of the view that the fact Page 6 of 21 remains that service tax collected by the assessee but not paid to the Government account up-to the end of the financial year or even up-to the date of filing of the return of income and, thus, by not including

HP INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

68,47,430. The AO disallowed the said provision under section 43B(f) for the reason that leave encashment

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

section 43B has no application. However, he was of the view that the fact remains that service tax collected by the assessee but not paid to the Government account up-to the end of the financial year or even up-to the date of filing of the return of income and, thus, by not including this amount

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43B would not be\nadmissible to the payment Guarantee commission by the\nassessee to the State Government under an agreement as it does\nnot qualify for any of the types mentioned therein.\nWe therefore remand this issue to the Ld.AO to carry out\nnecessary verification, based on the agreement entered into by\nthe assessee with the state Government

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

43B(f) of the Act, according to which a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of any sum payable by the assessee as an employer in lieu of any leave at the credit of his employee, shall be allowed irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred by the assessee according

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43B would not be\nadmissible to the payment Guarantee commission by the\nassessee to the State Government under an agreement as it does\nnot qualify for any of the types mentioned therein.\nWe therefore remand this issue to the Ld.AO to carry out\nnecessary verification, based on the agreement entered into by\nthe assessee with the state Government

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43B would not be\nadmissible to the payment Guarantee commission by the\nassessee to the State Government under an agreement as it does\nnot qualify for any of the types mentioned therein.\nWe therefore remand this issue to the Ld.AO to carry out\nnecessary verification, based on the agreement entered into by\nthe assessee with the state Government

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

43B would not be\nadmissible to the payment Guarantee commission by the\nassessee to the State Government under an agreement as it does\nnot qualify for any of the types mentioned therein.\nWe therefore remand this issue to the Ld.AO to carry out\nnecessary verification, based on the agreement entered into by\nthe assessee with the state Government

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

section 43B has no application. However, he was of the view that the fact remains that service tax collected by the assessee but not paid to the Government account up-to the end of the financial year or even up-to the date of filing of the return of income and, thus, by not including this amount

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43B would not be\nadmissible to the payment Guarantee commission by the\nassessee to the State Government under an agreement as it does\nnot qualify for any of the types mentioned therein.\nWe therefore remand this issue to the Ld.AO to carry out\nnecessary verification, based on the agreement entered into by\nthe assessee with the state Government

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43B would not be\nadmissible to the payment Guarantee commission by the\nassessee to the State Government under an agreement as it does\nnot qualify for any of the types mentioned therein.\nWe therefore remand this issue to the Ld.AO to carry out\nnecessary verification, based on the agreement entered into by\nthe assessee with the state Government

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

43B would not be\nadmissible to the payment Guarantee commission by the\nassessee to the State Government under an agreement as it does\nnot qualify for any of the types mentioned therein.\n\nWe therefore remand this issue to the Ld.AO to carry out\nnecessary verification, based on the agreement entered into by\nthe assessee with the state Government

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,190/- only. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act wherein the CPC disallowed the claim of gratuity expenses for Rs. 5,13,01,761/- as per the provision of section 43B