M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer pricing provision and not while allowability of business expense u/s 37(1). It is well known fact that companies use sports event as a platform to advertise their range of products as it has a very high viewership. Any such incurring of expenditure is ostensibly for promotion of business only and hence, no disallowance is called for. Accordingly, Grounds

M/S. SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 283/2, Bommasandra, The Deputy Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Jigani Industrial Area, Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aarcs8947E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shashi M Kapila, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Ld AO erred in not allowing set off of current year losses and brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 4,98,73,540 and Rs. 4,59,11,799 aggregating to Rs. 9,57,85,339 Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

transfer of shares by the assessee and others on 18.01.2017 at\na purchase price of Rs.28 Crores and immediately they have paid Rs.3\nCrores by cheque towards advance consideration as under:\ni. Rs 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) paid vide Cheque\nbearing No 149250 Dated 18-01-2017 drawn on Axis Bank.\nChitradurga, to the First Seller

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRLCE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

AC 588 HL, Bansilalmotilal's case\nand Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v Dewan Bahadur S.L. Mathias.\n\n10.3 Therefore an income could arise or accrue from a source in India\nwhen either of the following conditions are satisfied:\na) Paid by a person established in India (situs of payer) or\nDerived from work performed in India (situs of activity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

AC 588 HL, Bansilalmotilal's case\nand Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v Dewan Bahadur S.L. Mathias.\n\n10.3 Therefore an income could arise or accrue from a source in India\nwhen either of the following conditions are satisfied:\n\na) Paid by a person established in India (situs of payer) or\nDerived from work performed in India (situs

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

AC 588 HL, Bansilalmotilal's case\nand Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v Dewan Bahadur S.L. Mathias.\n10.3 Therefore an income could arise or accrue from a source in India\nwhen either of the following conditions are satisfied:\na) Paid by a person established in India (situs of payer) or\nDerived from work performed in India (situs of activity)\n10.4

M/S. TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Acit, No.78, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Electronic City, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaact 4660 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vikram Udupa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023

12. assessment order dated 28 December 2006, passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-7(3), Mumbai (Addl. Commissioner') under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Ace), is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction, as the Addl. Commissioner did not have the power to perform the functions of an 'Assessing Officer', in absence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

AC in the return of income filed\nwithout any reasoning?\n(ii)\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nLaw, the CIT(A) was correct in accepting the contention of assessee\nthat he had declared income @6.05% of the receipts in Form 26AS and\nthe same was in addition to income of Rs. 1 crore declared

M/S. ZASH TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

section\n55(2b) of the Act.\n3. Facts of the case are that during the relevant previous year, the\nassessee had transferred 6,12,01,078 Wipro shares. The\ncomputation of capital gains on such transfer of Wipro shares is\nsummarized hereunder:\n\nParticulars\nSection\nReference\nTotal Sale\nTotal Cost of\nacquisition\nLong term capital\ngain/(loss)\n\n180

M/S. CORPORATE LEISURE & PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

price or all significant risks and rewards or ownership have been transferred to the buyer and the seller retains no effective control of the goods transferred to a degree usually associated with ownership; and (ii)no significant uncertainty exists regarding the amount of the consideration that will be derived from the sale of the goods." In the instant case

AMBICAA SALES CORPORATION ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU - 5, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

transfer of the commodity or scrips: Provided that for the purposes of this clause— (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured