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

CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

14A of the Act.\"\n6.1 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra),\ntaking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken by the\nassessee.\n7.\nGround No.4 of the appeal is with regard to the applicability\nof the provisions of section 115JB of the Act.\n7.1 The A.R of the assessee submitted that

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

14A read 10 to 13 satisfaction by the AO with rule 8D(2)(iii) Without prejudice, ACIT v Vireet Investment (P) Ltd [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 – only actual dividend yielded investments should be considered under rule 8D(2)(iii) Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case Protective disallowance under section vide order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

14A of the Act.” 6.1 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), taking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken by the assessee. 7. Ground No.3 is with regard totaxing of the profit from the sale of shares of Can Fin Homes Ltd./CARE Ltd as business income instead of income from capital gains

CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

14A of the Act.” 6.1 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), taking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken by the assessee. ITA Nos.937 & 938/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore Page 7 of 20 7. Ground No.4 of the appeal is with regard to the applicability of the provisions of section 115JB

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

2. Disallowance u/s 14A: ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 4 of 46 The CIT(A) has erroneously allowed relief on the ground that the AO failed to record non-satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, as envisaged under the provisions of section 14A has not been recorded by the AO before proceeding to make

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

2. Disallowance u/s 14A: ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 4 of 46 The CIT(A) has erroneously allowed relief on the ground that the AO failed to record non-satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, as envisaged under the provisions of section 14A has not been recorded by the AO before proceeding to make

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

2 and 4 having been covered in favour of the assessee in the earlier orders in assessee's own case, it is submitted that substantial questions of law 1 and 3 become academic and need not be answered by this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take

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

2) of 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-6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2) of 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 ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) is deleted. 35. With regard to disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) the ld AR submitted that the assessee is having sufficient amount of own funds and hence no disallowance towards interest expenditure is warranted. We notice that the as per the Financial Statements of the assessee as on 31.03.2014 (page

M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) is deleted. 35. With regard to disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) the ld AR submitted that the assessee is having sufficient amount of own funds and hence no disallowance towards interest expenditure is warranted. We notice that the as per the Financial Statements of the assessee as on 31.03.2014 (page

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

2 = 25,47,00,000 Average value of total assets (Rs. 32865200000+37386606000)/2 =35125900000 (C) Proportionate interest expenditure = (A) x (B) / (C) = 57,92,872/ - As per clause (ii) IT(TP)A No.2569/Bang/2017 Page 38 of 84 ½ % of average value of investment = 12,73,500/- Total expenditure to be disallowed u/s 14A

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. 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

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. 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

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS provisions are not applicable came to be accepted by the AO. The AO held that the balance amount of Rs.82,65,66,645/- paid to Biocon Ltd., and its associated companies for research and development is nothing but job work undertaken by those companies and therefore, under the provisions of section 194C the assessee-company was liable to deduct

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

TDS provisions are not applicable came to be accepted by the AO. The AO held that the balance amount of Rs.82,65,66,645/- paid to Biocon Ltd., and its associated companies for research and development is nothing but job work undertaken by those companies and therefore, under the provisions of section 194C the assessee-company was liable to deduct