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

14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) and the impugned addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Disallowance of subscription charges paid to Forester Research and 3. Gartner:- The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making disallowance of expenditure incurred on subscription charges amounting to Rs. 3

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) read with rule 128(4), tax credit should be allowed in respect of disputed foreign tax once the same is settled

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A r,w.Rule 8D. 7.9 Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.10 Identical issue is raised by assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14. As the facts are identical, applying the above view mutatis mutandis for the subsequent assessment years also, this issue raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.11 Accordingly, the grounds raised on this issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A r,w.Rule 8D. 7.9 Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.10 Identical issue is raised by assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14. As the facts are identical, applying the above view mutatis mutandis for the subsequent assessment years also, this issue raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.11 Accordingly, the grounds raised on this issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A r,w.Rule 8D. 7.9 Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.10 Identical issue is raised by assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14. As the facts are identical, applying the above view mutatis mutandis for the subsequent assessment years also, this issue raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.11 Accordingly, the grounds raised on this issue

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A r,w.Rule 8D. 7.9 Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.10 Identical issue is raised by assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14. As the facts are identical, applying the above view mutatis mutandis for the subsequent assessment years also, this issue raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.11 Accordingly, the grounds raised on this issue

GMR HIGHWAYS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A r,w.Rule 8D. 7.9 Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.10 Identical issue is raised by assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14. As the facts are identical, applying the above view mutatis mutandis for the subsequent assessment years also, this issue raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.11 Accordingly, the grounds raised on this issue

GMR HIGHWAYS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A r,w.Rule 8D. 7.9 Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.10 Identical issue is raised by assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14. As the facts are identical, applying the above view mutatis mutandis for the subsequent assessment years also, this issue raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.11 Accordingly, the grounds raised on this issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A r,w.Rule 8D. 7.9 Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.10 Identical issue is raised by assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14. As the facts are identical, applying the above view mutatis mutandis for the subsequent assessment years also, this issue raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.11 Accordingly, the grounds raised on this issue

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A r,w.Rule 8D. 7.9 Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.10 Identical issue is raised by assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14. As the facts are identical, applying the above view mutatis mutandis for the subsequent assessment years also, this issue raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.11 Accordingly, the grounds raised on this issue

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A r,w.Rule 8D. 7.9 Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.10 Identical issue is raised by assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14. As the facts are identical, applying the above view mutatis mutandis for the subsequent assessment years also, this issue raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.11 Accordingly, the grounds raised on this issue

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A r,w.Rule 8D. 7.9 Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.10 Identical issue is raised by assessee for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14. As the facts are identical, applying the above view mutatis mutandis for the subsequent assessment years also, this issue raised by assessee stands allowed. 7.11 Accordingly, the grounds raised on this issue

CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

TDS') to INR 18,74,81,464 vis-a-vis INR 19,36.50,171 claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

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 143(3

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

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

3. In view of above direction of the ITAT, the assessee was asked to submit the details with respect of all comparables vide letter dated 19.06.2017. In response of the same the submission was filed by the assessee on 11.06.2017 which have been considered. As per submission, assessee has stated that out of the total 17 comparable agreements, the related

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

3. In view of above direction of the ITAT, the assessee was asked to submit the details with respect of all comparables vide letter dated 19.06.2017. In response of the same the submission was filed by the assessee on 11.06.2017 which have been considered. As per submission, assessee has stated that out of the total 17 comparable agreements, the related

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