M/S. MAHAVEERA MINORITY CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , HOSPET

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

transferring or receiving SBNs is\nonly after the 'appointed day' which is 31.12.2016. In view of the above,\nthere is no violation by the assessee of any law in accepting SBNs for the\npurpose of cash sales and considering it to be a due discharge of debt.\nFurthermore, even the CBDT had issued various Standard Operating\nProcedures (SOPs) instructing

KAMAL KOTHARI ,CHANNAPATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Kamal Kothari, Vs. Ito, Prop: M/S. B. L. Bankers, Ward – 1, M. G. Road, Ramnagar. Channapatna – 562 160. Pan : Bcgpk 1898 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2023

transfer, as he had done by depositing cash of Rs.20,000/-. This again goes on to prove that the assessee had no such cash on hand. f) Lastly, If the assessee had cash on hand on the day of demonetization day le.. 8.11.2016 and from 9.11.2016. one would have exchanged the old notes only through bank deposits

NERALAKERE MARULASIDDAPPA DAYANANDA ,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , CHIKMAGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Neralakere Marulasiddappa The Income-Tax Officer, Dayananda, Ward-1, S/O Ns Marulasiddappa, Vs. Chikmagalur. Neralekere Post, Tarikere. Pan – Aswpd 5306 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vevek A.R, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 2/2/2023 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. The Entire Appeal Order Passed By Learned Cit In So Far It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Principle Of Equity & Justice. 2. The Learned Ao Erred In Bringing Amount Of Rs.18.44 Lakhs To Tax Without Appreciating The Fact That, Appellant Is An Agriculturist & Has Given All Particulars Which Were Sought By The Learned Ao. 3. The Learned Ao Ought To Have Considered The Income Of Huf Also While Concluding The Assessment. Page 2 Of 7

transfers. Categorically, the assessee submitted before the authorities below that the cash during the demonetization period into bank account is out of agricultural proceeds only, which has been declared in the return of income. The ld.AO after considering various submission of the assessee made addition of Rs.18,44,000/- as assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation with documentary evidences

SRI. VISHWANATH KUNTAVALLI,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SHIMOGA

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

price of Laser Cutting Machine in Balance Sheet of the assessee and invoice of supplier M/s. Indus Arc Power Pvt. Ltd. 5 Shri Vishwanath Kuntavalli iii) Addition of Rs.1,56,75,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and brought to tax at rates applicable as per Section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 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 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

transfer pricing segment was restored to the AO / TPO to examine whether the assesee had recovered expenditure incurred in respect of warranty services with the 27 IT(TP)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/s.Dell International Services India Private Limited. mark-up of 5%. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-2010, which has confirmed

QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE :LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BELAGAVI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No.279/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18

deposit rate. a) Without prejudice to the above grounds 21 and 22, the learned TPO/ learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP has erred in considering a credit period of 30 days, instead of 120 days as specified in the intercompany agreements, for the purpose of computing the interest on delayed receivables. b) The learned TPO in its order has justified

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

transfer pricing rules. We direct the Ld.AO/TPO to consider the segments of the assessee under the receipt of business development services from its AE denovo in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, ground nos. 5-7 and 9-10 stands allowed for statistical purposes. Revenue’s appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

transfer pricing rules. We direct the Ld.AO/TPO to consider the segments of the assessee under the receipt of business development services from its AE denovo in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, ground nos. 5-7 and 9-10 stands allowed for statistical purposes. Revenue’s appeal

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI V G SIDDHARTHA, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR MS. MALVIKA HEGDE, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price of the same was for ₹3 crores only. This fact was duly explained by late Shri V G Siddhartha in the subsequent statement recorded under section 131 of the Act while explaining the excel sheet found from one Shri Sadananda Pujary. Thus, the sale consideration for this land was ₹3 crores, was accounted for in the books