HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

transfer pricing grounds submitted before him on November 11, 2011 in good faith even before the receipt of the appellate order dated October 18, 2011 (served on the Appellant on December 3,2011) passed by him. 2.3 Without prejudice that the CIT's order under section 263 of the Act set aside the DAD with directions to frame a fresh

M/S. GE BE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

transfer pricing matters 20. The learned AO and the learned Panel has erred in not allowing an amount of INR 3,34,92,043 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards the disallowance of year end provisions pertaining to AY 14-15 for non-deduction of taxes, without appreciating the fact that the provisions were-reversed during

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction under

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Transfer Pricing Officer,\nwhere the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed\nunder section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and,\ndisclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and\n(e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.\n(7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

NAVUNDA ABDULLA BADRUDDIN,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Navunda Abdulla Badruddin Vs Pcit, Central O Thuwfeeq Manzil C.R. Building, Queen'S Road Maski Navunda, Kundapur Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 576224 Pan – Aevpa6893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pcit) U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act), Bangalore In Appeal No. 263/Pr.Cit(C)/2001-02 Dated 28.03.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143[3] R.W.S. 153D Of The Act Dated 19/12/2019 & Direct

246a of the Act before the CIT(A). The assessee further submitted that the AO has done proper enquiry and concluded the assessment after accepting the explanation made by the assessee. 6. The PCIT did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to set aside the order of the AO by invoking explanation (2) to section

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. 4.12 In the case of Genpact India P Ltd, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court noticed that the additional

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

246A provides for appellate remedy for different types of tax demands raised upon the assessee and there should not be any dispute that the assessees have been filing separate appeals for the demand raised under different sections of the Act. 4.12 In the case of Genpact India P Ltd, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court noticed that the additional

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the search operations carried out under Section 132 of the said Act. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that the foundation of the assessment made hereunder in the search operations carried out against the petitioners

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section stands satisfied notwithstanding non usage of the assets itself by the assessee. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) noted that the assets in ITA Nos. 239 to 255/Bang/2018 Page 27 of 37 question are owned by the assessee and the assessee had leased

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section stands satisfied notwithstanding non usage of the assets itself by the assessee. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) noted that the assets in ITA Nos. 239 to 255/Bang/2018 Page 27 of 37 question are owned by the assessee and the assessee had leased

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section stands satisfied notwithstanding non usage of the assets itself by the assessee. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) noted that the assets in ITA Nos. 239 to 255/Bang/2018 Page 27 of 37 question are owned by the assessee and the assessee had leased

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , UDUPI , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section stands satisfied notwithstanding non usage of the assets itself by the assessee. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) noted that the assets in ITA Nos. 239 to 255/Bang/2018 Page 27 of 37 question are owned by the assessee and the assessee had leased

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section stands satisfied notwithstanding non usage of the assets itself by the assessee. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) noted that the assets in ITA Nos. 239 to 255/Bang/2018 Page 27 of 37 question are owned by the assessee and the assessee had leased

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section stands satisfied notwithstanding non usage of the assets itself by the assessee. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) noted that the assets in ITA Nos. 239 to 255/Bang/2018 Page 27 of 37 question are owned by the assessee and the assessee had leased

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section stands satisfied notwithstanding non usage of the assets itself by the assessee. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) noted that the assets in ITA Nos. 239 to 255/Bang/2018 Page 27 of 37 question are owned by the assessee and the assessee had leased

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section stands satisfied notwithstanding non usage of the assets itself by the assessee. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) noted that the assets in ITA Nos. 239 to 255/Bang/2018 Page 27 of 37 question are owned by the assessee and the assessee had leased

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section stands satisfied notwithstanding non usage of the assets itself by the assessee. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) noted that the assets in ITA Nos. 239 to 255/Bang/2018 Page 27 of 37 question are owned by the assessee and the assessee had leased

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section stands satisfied notwithstanding non usage of the assets itself by the assessee. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) noted that the assets in ITA Nos. 239 to 255/Bang/2018 Page 27 of 37 question are owned by the assessee and the assessee had leased