M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. However, sub-section 3

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. However, sub-section 3

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. However, sub-section 3

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. However, sub-section 3

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. However, sub-section 3

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. However, sub-section 3

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. However, sub-section 3

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

TDS CPC, it should have filed an appeal within thirty days from the service of such order as prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. However, sub-section 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

3. deduction u/s. 80JJAA of Rs.307.52 crores. 4.7.1. The Ld.AO also noted that assessee had substantial tax free income that was earned during the year under consideration amounting to Rs.23,45,95,152/- however assessee had only shown an expense of Rs.1,72,86,259/-. 4.7.2. The Ld.AO noted that assessee had made certain payment to M/s. Forrester Research

M/S FIZA DEVELOPERS & INTER TRADE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.1257/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) M/S. Fiza Developers & Inter Trade P. Ltd, No.25/1, Residency Road, Bangalore .. Appellant Pan : Aaacf5868N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -11(3), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 25.08.2015 Pronounced On : 27.08.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George: In This Appeal Filed By Assessee Directed Against An Order Dt.17.06.2013, Its Grievance Is That The Cit (A) Dismissed Its Appeal For Non-Payment Of Tax Due On Returned Income. 02. When The Matter Came Up Before Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Total Tax Due As Per The Return Filed Was Rs.87,14,679/- Out Of Which, Rs.16,90,412/- Stood Credited On Account Of Tds. As Per The Ld. Ar Though It Was True That Assessee Had Not Paid Full Amount Of Tax At The Time Of Filing The Return Or Before The Appeal Was Filed, It Was Later Paid In Full. Ld. Ar

3), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT Heard on : 25.08.2015 Pronounced on : 27.08.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : In this appeal filed by assessee directed against an order dt.17.06.2013, its grievance is that the CIT (A) dismissed its appeal for non-payment

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. Second ground of appeal pertains to deleting the disallowance on account of sponsorship fees and management fees. In the earlier part of our order, we have mentioned the facts about the various disallowances made by the AO including the capitalisation of sponsorship. Treating it as an intangible asset, he allowed depreciation on it @25%. 3.1. The FAA after considering

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3. Second ground of appeal pertains to deleting the disallowance on account of sponsorship fees and management fees. In the earlier part of our order, we have mentioned the facts about the various disallowances made by the AO including the capitalisation of sponsorship. Treating it as an intangible asset, he allowed depreciation on it @25%. 3.1. The FAA after considering

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

249 and 224 of the paper-book respectively. He further submitted that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee company and had not been disputed by the revenue. Any incidental benefit that may arise to any other person or entity cannot be a bar for allowance of expenditure under section

M/S DESAI & CO.,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

249[3] of the Act in the most judicious manner to promote and uphold the substantial cause of justice, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without Prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in not adjudicating all the grounds raised by the Appellant on merits which is in grave violation of principles

DCIT vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK,

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section

PEOPLE TREE CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHAMARAJPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

section 249(4) of the Act. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in not considering the submission that appellant has filed People Tree Chits Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore Page 2 of 7 return of income and the entire tax payable on returned income is covered by the TDS. 3

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

249(3) of the Income Tax Act and Section 5\nof the Limitation Act. The appellant has acted with reasonable\ndiligence and good faith. Therefore, a liberal and justice-oriented\napproach mandates that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned\nand the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.”\n11.\nConsidering the above submissions wherein the assessee has\nexplained

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

249(3) of the Income Tax Act and Section 5\nof the Limitation Act. The appellant has acted with reasonable\ndiligence and good faith. Therefore, a liberal and justice-oriented\napproach mandates that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned\nand the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.”\n11.\nConsidering the above submissions wherein the assessee has\nexplained