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

TDS under section 194J. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, 6. disallowance confirmed under section 40(a)(ia) to the extent of Rs. 1,45,000 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not restricting the 7. impugned disallowance, if any, to Rs.43,500 being

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

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 Tax Authorities. As per section 155(14A

PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU 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

Section 115JB of the Act to that extent. For the aforementioned reasons, the third substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 7.2 Respectfully following the above, we direct the Ld.AO to delete the disallowance u/s. 14A while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands

M/S. PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CA read with section 154 of the Act.” IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 42 of 62 8.1 These grounds are infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 9. Next ground Nos. 8 & 9 in AY in 2014-15 are with regard to payment towards technical service fee to it’s A.E. which

M/S PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 92CA read with section 154 of the Act.” IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 42 of 62 8.1 These grounds are infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 9. Next ground Nos. 8 & 9 in AY in 2014-15 are with regard to payment towards technical service fee to it’s A.E. which

M/S. NSL SUGARS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

14A of the Act, as there is no exempt income earned during the year. It is observed that assessee raised this issue in an appeal against order passed under section 154, where addition has been made to the book profits of assessee for years under consideration. As order passed under section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 14A rwr 8D. The disallowance is made after examining all the issues and relying upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Godrej and Boyce 328 ITR. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in assessee's own case for AY 2001-02 has not been accepted by the department

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 14A rwr 8D. The disallowance is made after examining all the issues and relying upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Godrej and Boyce 328 ITR. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in assessee's own case for AY 2001-02 has not been accepted by the department

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines while making the payment to the assessee. Our attention was also invited to the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, according to which if the respondent has paid the tax on the receipt and filed the return before the due date of filing the return, the assessee cannot

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines while making the payment to the assessee. Our attention was also invited to the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, according to which if the respondent has paid the tax on the receipt and filed the return before the due date of filing the return, the assessee cannot

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines while making the payment to the assessee. Our attention was also invited to the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, according to which if the respondent has paid the tax on the receipt and filed the return before the due date of filing the return, the assessee cannot

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

TDS on the amount retained by the Airlines while making the payment to the assessee. Our attention was also invited to the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, according to which if the respondent has paid the tax on the receipt and filed the return before the due date of filing the return, the assessee cannot

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

14A. 10.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore has erred in not allowing double taxation relief under section 90 amounting to Rs. 3,69,70,354/- which was claimed in the return of income. 10.2 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore has erred in not allowing double taxation relief on account of variation

M/S. ATRIA CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

14A read with Rule 8D (2)(iii). 3. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of Cable TV, Internet and other broadband services across various cities in India. It filed return of income for AY 2011-12 on 30.9.2011 declaring a loss of Rs.33,25,10,204 and later filed a revised return on 20.2.2012 declaring

M/S. SLK SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 14A. 10.3 In view of the above, we hold that, in the absence of any dissatisfaction recorded by the AO regarding the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee, the provisions of Rule 8D cannot be invoked. In the present case, there is no dissatisfaction recorded by the AO with respect to the suo motu disallowance made

M/S. SLK SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6N, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 14A. 10.3 In view of the above, we hold that, in the absence of any dissatisfaction recorded by the AO regarding the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee, the provisions of Rule 8D cannot be invoked. In the present case, there is no dissatisfaction recorded by the AO with respect to the suo motu disallowance made

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 14A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) Ground Nos.3 and 4: 68,72,56,631/- Disallowance of interest on reserve fund Ground No.5: 3,95,432/- Mismatch of TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 14A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) Ground Nos.3 and 4: 68,72,56,631/- Disallowance of interest on reserve fund Ground No.5: 3,95,432/- Mismatch of TDS

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

section 14A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) Ground Nos.3 and 4: 68,72,56,631/- Disallowance of interest on reserve fund Ground No.5: 3,95,432/- Mismatch of TDS