SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

124 Taxman, 384(Bombay) held that the\nprohibitory order placed under section 132(3) of the Act as invalid. The\nrelevant finding of the Hon’ble court reads as under:\nIn the present case, the cupboard in which 45 kgs. of silver articles were kept\nwas sealed by making an order under section 132(3). The authorised officers\nwere obviously

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

124 Taxman, 384(Bombay) held that the\nprohibitory order placed under section 132(3) of the Act as invalid. The\nrelevant finding of the Hon’ble court reads as under:\nIn the present case, the cupboard in which 45 kgs. of silver articles were kept\nwas sealed by making an order under section 132(3). The authorised officers\nwere obviously

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

124 TTJ 176, to support the aforestated view. This Tribunal in the said case has held as under: “As regards violation of norms of STPI, we are of the view that unless violation of conditions of approval, impinge on conditions for grant of deduction under the relevant provisions of the Act, there is no ground for denial of deduction

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

124,95,69,491 CIT v Wheels India Ltd [2012] 20 taxmann.com 682 (Mad) CIT v Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd [2012] 22 taxmann.com 19 (Delhi) 51 to 53 TDS credit AO to verify and allow Foreign tax credit of Rs. 96,55,80,804 includes an amount of Rs. 68,14,32,706 which is under dispute before the Australian

M/S UDBHAV CONSTRUCTIONS,UDUPI vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

124 of the Act is reproduced hereunder : JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the Assessing officer has been vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of such area, he shall have jurisdiction-- (a) in respect of any person carrying

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS under section 194B or section 194 BB of the Act. Consequentially no disallowance could be made under section 40 (a) (ia) of the act in the hands of assessee. Accordingly ground No. 2-4 raised by assessee stands allowed.” 9.2 The facts for year under consideration are identical and nothing contrary has been placed on record by revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS under section 194B or section 194 BB of the Act. Consequentially no disallowance could be made under section 40 (a) (ia) of the act in the hands of assessee. Accordingly ground No. 2-4 raised by assessee stands allowed.” 9.2 The facts for year under consideration are identical and nothing contrary has been placed on record by revenue

M/S.IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

124 TTJ 176, to support the afore stated view. This Tribunal in the said case has held as under: “As regards violation of norms of STPI, we are of the view that unless violation of conditions of approval, impinge on conditions for grant of deduction under the relevant provisions of the Act, there is no ground for denial of deduction

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S IBM INDIA (P) LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

124 TTJ 176, to support the afore stated view. This Tribunal in the said case has held as under: “As regards violation of norms of STPI, we are of the view that unless violation of conditions of approval, impinge on conditions for grant of deduction under the relevant provisions of the Act, there is no ground for denial of deduction

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.773 & 2041/Bang/2016 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12

124 TTJ 176, to support the afore stated view. This Tribunal in the said case has held as under: “As regards violation of norms of STPI, we are of the view that unless violation of conditions of approval, impinge on conditions for grant of deduction under the relevant provisions of the Act, there is no ground for denial of deduction

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. Second ground of appeal pertains to deleting the disallowance on account of sponsorship fees and management fees. In the earlier part of our order, we have mentioned the facts about the various disallowances made by the AO including the capitalisation of sponsorship. Treating it as an intangible asset, he allowed depreciation on it @25%. 3.1. The FAA after considering

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. Second ground of appeal pertains to deleting the disallowance on account of sponsorship fees and management fees. In the earlier part of our order, we have mentioned the facts about the various disallowances made by the AO including the capitalisation of sponsorship. Treating it as an intangible asset, he allowed depreciation on it @25%. 3.1. The FAA after considering

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

Section 37 of the Income-tax Act would be relevant. The said provision reads as follows: "SECTION 37 GENERAL: (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 40(a)(ia) and taxes paid on the same, there is no loss to revenue to the Government as the revenue is more than adequately compensated in the form of higher taxes by the deductor due to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). In this regard, the Company had made a detailed submission before the learned AO vide submission dated