UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

Pricing Officer-TOP under Section 92CA could be invalid and bad in law. 7. It is for this precise reason, Tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and. DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

pricing order. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. As regards grounds No.4, 5 & 6 are concerned; we find that they relate to corporate matters. 16. As regards ground No.4(a) is concerned, brief facts are that during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee had paid income

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

pricing order. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. As regards grounds No.4, 5 & 6 are concerned; we find that they relate to corporate matters. 16. As regards ground No.4(a) is concerned, brief facts are that during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee had paid income

THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,,MYSORE vs. ITO, MYSORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

section 194A(3)(iii)(f) would be admissible to an assessee who made payments to a company whose shares are held by the Govt. or held by the RBI or held by the corporation owned by RBI. Thereafter the Assessing Officer took into consideration the shareholding pattern of KUIDFC in Paragraph No.5.6 of the impugned order. The details read

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) thereof. The TPO passed the order under Section 92A of the Act vide order dt.27.6.2008 in which no TP Adjustment to the ALP of the assessee's international transactions was proposed or made. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

price, in law they are entitled to deductions and it cannot be denied by the authorities under the pretext that it is shown as investment in the Balance Sheet. 10. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the authorities balding that in view of the RBI guidelines, the assessee is stopped from treating the investment as stock

M/S AD2PRO MEDIA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the 14 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Shri P.K.Gadale(Ita Nos.490 To 503(Bang)/2019) (Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ad2Pro Media Solutions Pvt.Ltd., No.10, 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, J.P.Nagar-Iii Phase, Bangalore-560078 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095 Respondent

194a) or section 194LD or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act (not being income chargeable under the head "Salaries") shall . at the time of credit of such income to the account of the of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft

INDIRA RAMAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

transfer my father bank account by way of inheritance / succession / gifts from my father. These deposits were accumulated over a period of several years as old as 2007 none during the year. Thus the source of these deposits were clearly explained. 2. TCS Statement – 14.34 During the year in issue, the assessee did Cash sale of bullion not make

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled to exemption or deduction under the special provisions of Chapter VIA in the form of Section 80P of the Act. 16. If the legislative intent is so clear, then it cannot contended

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled to exemption or deduction under the special provisions of Chapter VIA in the form of Section 80P of the Act. 16. If the legislative intent is so clear, then it cannot contended

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled to exemption or deduction under the special provisions of Chapter VIA in the form of Section 80P of the Act. 16. If the legislative intent is so clear, then it cannot contended

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled to exemption or deduction under the special provisions of Chapter VIA in the form of Section 80P of the Act. 16. If the legislative intent is so clear, then it cannot contended

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled to exemption or deduction under the special provisions of Chapter VIA in the form of Section 80P of the Act. 16. If the legislative intent is so clear, then it cannot contended

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

transferred is of no consequence to the issue on hand. Further, it was submitted that equity shares were allotted to the debenture holder in lieu of debentures held by the assessee company at a mutually agreed price during the F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to assessment year 2016-17 and hence, this event cannot have a bearing on the transaction

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

price, has been placed in possession of the houses as an owner and is using the buildings for the purpose of its business in its own right. Still the assessee has been denied the benefit of section 32. On the other hand, the Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

price, has been placed in possession of the houses as an owner and is using the buildings for the purpose of its business in its own right. Still the assessee has been denied the benefit of section 32. On the other hand, the Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

price, has been placed in possession of the houses as an owner and is using the buildings for the purpose of its business in its own right. Still the assessee has been denied the benefit of section 32. On the other hand, the Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

price, has been placed in possession of the houses as an owner and is using the buildings for the purpose of its business in its own right. Still the assessee has been denied the benefit of section 32. On the other hand, the Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

price, has been placed in possession of the houses as an owner and is using the buildings for the purpose of its business in its own right. Still the assessee has been denied the benefit of section 32. On the other hand, the Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being