DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS 803723.00 2 Penalty -ESI and Professional Tax 1669730.00 3 Gifts 100750.00 4 DKA Statue Expenses 181075.00 5 Input Tax Credit Write off 12444081,00 Total 3999359.00 9.2 Accordingly, the Ld. AO disallowed these expenses and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 10. Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee preferred an appeal before

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS 803723.00 2 Penalty -ESI and Professional Tax 1669730.00 3 Gifts 100750.00 4 DKA Statue Expenses 181075.00 5 Input Tax Credit Write off 12444081,00 Total 3999359.00 9.2 Accordingly, the Ld. AO disallowed these expenses and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 10. Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee preferred an appeal before

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS was made, therefore, it was also disallowed as per section 40(a)(ia) 14. On appeal the CIT(A) after discussing in detail on many judgments did not accept the plea of the assessee and in case of Page 12 of 30 AMC expenses he observed that the first proviso of section 201(1) is not automatic , the onus

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

127 taxmann.com 59 (Karnataka HC)), has upheld the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited v Addi CIT(LTU) [IT(TP)A No. 169/Ban g12014] and held that amendment by Finance Act 2018 is retrospective in nature. The Court also held that. "16.9 The meaning or interpretation now sought to be given by Sri. Aravind

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

2)(iii) Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case Protective disallowance under section vide order dated 20.9.2021 in ITA No 40(a)(i) in respect of subscription 14 & 15 281/2018 c/w ITA No 279/2018 deleted charges paid / payable to M/s Forester identical disallowance following Engineering Research and M/s Gartner Analysis decision of SC No disallowance as there

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

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS") under section 1941 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the expense does not warrant tax withholding under the provisions of section 1941 of the Act.” 40. As far as this ground is concerned, the material facts are that the assessee entered into a lease agreement with IBM Global Services India Pvt. Ltd., whereby it took certain equipment

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS") under section 1941 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the expense does not warrant tax withholding under the provisions of section 1941 of the Act.” 40. As far as this ground is concerned, the material facts are that the assessee entered into a lease agreement with IBM Global Services India Pvt. Ltd., whereby it took certain equipment

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. 7. After admitting the writ appeals filed by the department, the Karnataka High Court at para 4 of the interim order held as under. "4. On the aspects of the amount of TDS to be deducted towards stake money by the club, we find that as up till now in past, deduction has not been made and the question

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

127 42858,38,47,884 43690,24,17,006 Non-fund Business 11818,60,47,816 11712,53,29,795 11765,56,88,806 Total 269379,91,73,064 260371,10,91,735 264875,51,32,401 19. From the above table, the AO observed that the assessee has not transferred any amount to the special reserve as mentioned

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

127 42858,38,47,884 43690,24,17,006 Non-fund Business 11818,60,47,816 11712,53,29,795 11765,56,88,806 Total 269379,91,73,064 260371,10,91,735 264875,51,32,401 19. From the above table, the AO observed that the assessee has not transferred any amount to the special reserve as mentioned

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2011-12 M/S.Kids Clinic India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1533, 9Th Main, Range - 5,Bengaluru. 3Rd Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aacck 7678 R Assesseee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate : Revenue By Shri. Tshering Ongda, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 19.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.1.2021 O R D E R

127 ITR 409 (AP). 15. In the light of the judicial decisions referred to above, we are of the view that the payment in question was owing to commercial expediency and enabled the assessee to avoid payment of future licence fee and thereby reduced the operating cost of the assessee. Such payment cannot be regarded as a capital expenditure