FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO. The details of the additions proposed by the Ld.AO are as under: Total income as per ITR Rs. 39,82,64,080/- Add: TP addition u/s 92CA Rs.41,59,26,724/- Add: Disallowance u/s 80G Rs.5,50,000/- Add: Disallowance u/s 40A(7) Rs. 1,84,63,980/- Total

TOYOTA TSUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGAORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

transfer pricing study, the comparable companies are selected which are sufficiently comparable with the tested party. In the present case, the company, namely M/s Growtech Limited, is engaged in the manufacturing activity which cannot be compared with the trading activity the assessee as both the companies operate in different segment. Accordingly, we hold that such a comparable cannot be used

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

197 ITR 196) as under: "We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on this legal aspect. But suffice it to say that the core of all the decisions of this Court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made ITA Nos.414&415/Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

197 ITR 196) as under: "We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on this legal aspect. But suffice it to say that the core of all the decisions of this Court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made ITA Nos.414&415/Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

197 which deals with the additions made and as listed out in item no 1 to 14, hereinabove, and have appended the same by way of annexure “A” to this order. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assesse relied on the submissions made before the lower authorities and argued extensively. He has filed written synopsis, the relevant part

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer of cheque payments from us to his bank account. Q.No.10 Please explain why the bank statement of M/S. Vinayaka Fruit Mandi is found in the business premises of M/s. SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd? Ans.: Shri. Janardhan, our accountant was also looking after the accounts of both the concerns viz., M/s. Srinivasa Bottle Traders and M/S. Vinayaka Fruit

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer of cheque payments from us to his bank account. Q.No.10 Please explain why the bank statement of M/S. Vinayaka Fruit Mandi is found in the business premises of M/s. SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd? Ans.: Shri. Janardhan, our accountant was also looking after the accounts of both the concerns viz., M/s. Srinivasa Bottle Traders and M/S. Vinayaka Fruit

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer of cheque payments from us to his bank account. Q.No.10 Please explain why the bank statement of M/S. Vinayaka Fruit Mandi is found in the business premises of M/s. SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd? Ans.: Shri. Janardhan, our accountant was also looking after the accounts of both the concerns viz., M/s. Srinivasa Bottle Traders and M/S. Vinayaka Fruit

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

transfer of cheque payments from us to his bank account. Q.No.10 Please explain why the bank statement of M/S. Vinayaka Fruit Mandi is found in the business premises of M/s. SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd? Ans.: Shri. Janardhan, our accountant was also looking after the accounts of both the concerns viz., M/s. Srinivasa Bottle Traders and M/S. Vinayaka Fruit

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

197\nITR 196) as under:\n\"We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on\nthis legal aspect. But suffice it to say that the core of all the decisions of\nthis Court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made\neither before the customs authorities or the officers of Enforcement

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

transfer of money, but the\nTribunal rightly held that there were independent transactions\nand had nothing to do with the MOU. On the basis of aforesaid,\nit was held that no substantial question of law arises.\n5.23 The case of ld. Counsel was that there should be some\ntangible material on record to show that the purchases were not\nmade

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

price- list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above, (para 7) If the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

price- list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above, (para 7) If the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

price- list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above, (para 7) If the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

price- list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above, (para 7) If the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

price-\nlist itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the\nAdjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the\ncross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above, (para 7) If the testimony\nof these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on\nthe

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

transferred to me.\nI have received salary income of around Rs.25,00,000/- which I will offer as income\nand pay resultant tax. I am not able to explain the sources for the remaining\nRs.40,00,000/-. I offer the same as my additional undisclosed income for the FY\n2013-14.\n3.1. From the above ld. AO observed that assessee

SRI. MARUTHIVANDITH REDDY MANNUR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

transferred to me.\nI have received salary income of around Rs.25,00,000/- which I will offer as income\nand pay resultant tax. I am not able to explain the sources for the remaining\nRs.40,00,000/-. I offer the same as my additional undisclosed income for the FY\n2013-14.\n3.1. From the above ld. AO observed that assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall