M/S ATLAS BRANDS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS-CPC) , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 13 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Ms. Beena Pillai

TDS returns. He submitted that against these demands raised by the AO u/s. 234E, assessee has not filed any appeal before CIT(A) but has filed revision petition before learned CIT u/s. 264 of IT Act on 09.01.2019 and the same are still pending before CIT. He submitted that later on, the AO initiated proceedings

M/S FUTURISTIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

TDS of Rs.14,37,924 deserves to be allowed by lifting the restriction imposed. 4. The Learned Authorities Below ought not to have charged interest under section 234 B on the tax resulting from the addition of Rs.12,54,98,299 as business income from sale of land. Hence the interest of Rs.79,40,064 levied deserves to be deleted

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

section 10AA of the Act. Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed. 16. Ground nos. 41 & 42 - Reduction of deduction under section 10AA in respect of pure onsite revenue 16.1 It was submitted that a software development project typically goes through the stages of requirement analysis, prototyping, design, pilots, programming, testing and installation and maintenance. A software

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

2(32), Hyderabad v. Excel Media P. Ltd. and CIT v. Bharti Cellular 220 ITR 258 and the assessee also relied on Notification No.47/2016 dated 17.6.2016. He further submitted that the recipient has filed return of income including this income, therefore by virtue of section 40(a)(ia) no disallowance can be made. 27. The ld.AO disallowed the entire amount

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

2(32), Hyderabad v. Excel Media P. Ltd. and CIT v. Bharti Cellular 220 ITR 258 and the assessee also relied on Notification No.47/2016 dated 17.6.2016. He further submitted that the recipient has filed return of income including this income, therefore by virtue of section 40(a)(ia) no disallowance can be made. 27. The ld.AO disallowed the entire amount

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act are almost identical except the\nword 'managerial' is not finding place in the definition of the tax treaties.\n30.7 As per the definition of fees for included services in the above said tax\ntreaty provisions;\na. The payments may be made to any person in consideration to his\nrendering of technical

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

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

220/- for the\nAY 2020-21. Likewise, the AO completed the assessment for AY 2021-22\nvide order dated 28th November 2023 assessing the total income at\nRs.138,43,73,474/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,95,140/-.\n\n6. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A), raising various grounds of appeal challenging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act are almost identical except the\nword 'managerial' is not finding place in the definition of the tax treaties.\n\n30.7 As per the definition of fees for included services in the above said tax\ntreaty provisions;\n\na. The payments may be made to any person in consideration to his\nrendering

M/S JAS TELECOM PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-16 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stands allowed partly

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

section 272A(2)(k) were thus imposed by Ld.AO for years under consideration as under : Periodicity TDS Amount Form Num Delay (Days) Penalty Amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRLCE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act are almost identical except the\nword 'managerial' is not finding place in the definition of the tax treaties.\n\n30.7 As per the definition of fees for included services in the above said tax\ntreaty provisions;\na. The payments may be made to any person in consideration to his\nrendering

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

TDS is not an allowable deduction and dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. The ld. AR submitted a detailed written submission on various case laws which we will discuss in the ensuing paras. 13. At the outset it has to be mentioned that the question whether interest paid u/s.201(1A) of the Act, is an allowable business expenditure

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

TDS is not an allowable deduction and dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. The ld. AR submitted a detailed written submission on various case laws which we will discuss in the ensuing paras. 13. At the outset it has to be mentioned that the question whether interest paid u/s.201(1A) of the Act, is an allowable business expenditure

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

220/- for the\nAY 2020-21. Likewise, the AO completed the assessment for AY 2021-22\nvide order dated 28th November 2023 assessing the total income at\nRs.138,43,73,474/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,95,140/-.\n6. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A), raising various grounds of appeal challenging the validity

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

TDS is not an allowable deduction and dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. The ld. AR submitted a detailed written 6 ITA No.1139/Bang/2022. M/s.Expat Engineering India Limited. submission on various case laws which we will discuss in the ensuing paras. 13. At the outset it has to be mentioned that the question whether interest paid u/s.201