M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

2)(iii). The submission of ld. counsel for the assessee is that this issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Holcin India (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that if no dividend income was earned, section 14A couldnot be invoked. The Hon’ble Delhi High

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

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

Gains.\n3. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law to appreciate that the fact the shares held by the\nbank in CanFin Homes Ltd. are to be treated as capital asset.\n3. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that it was strategic investment by the bank.\n3. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following

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

14A as per rule 8D in the absence of satisfaction of the Ld.AO on incorrectness of the claim made by the assessee. 8.5. Without prejudice, Special bench of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., reported in (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415, among other cases has held that only those investments

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 as per rule 8D in the absence of satisfaction of the Ld.AO on incorrectness of the claim made by the assessee. 8.5. Without prejudice, Special bench of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., reported in (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415, among other cases has held that only those investments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

14A Rs.37,82,496 2). Net Capital Gain earned from Sale of Land and from Sale Of shares as discussed para 4 Of the assessment order i.e., Amount credited to Capital Reserve (12,11,12,036-45,05,000) - Rs.11,66,07,036 Rs.12,03,89,532 Deemed Income as per Section

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

MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

capital gains’. Therefore there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee. He strongly relied in the judgments of different High Courts where it is specifically stated that recording satisfaction before invoking section 14A is mandatory requirement as per law and the AO has missed the bus and there is no satisfaction recorded at all. Therefore the computation made

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

capital gains’. Therefore there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee. He strongly relied in the judgments of different High Courts where it is specifically stated that recording satisfaction before invoking section 14A is mandatory requirement as per law and the AO has missed the bus and there is no satisfaction recorded at all. Therefore the computation made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

capital gains’. Therefore there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee. He strongly relied in the judgments of different High Courts where it is specifically stated that recording satisfaction before invoking section 14A is mandatory requirement as per law and the AO has missed the bus and there is no satisfaction recorded at all. Therefore the computation made

UNITED BREWERIES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

14A of the Act to the extent of old investment is set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer with same direction as given for the Assessment Year 2006-07. Since there is a dividend income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 therefore the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest

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

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

14A 1,31,50,663 Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) 8,24,77,951 Disallowance under section 43B 49,27,979 Foreign royalty 16,56,488 Brand promotion expense 13,76,00,000 3. The A.O. also made an addition of Rs.140.49 crore and treated the amount transferred UBL Trust to the assessee as “long term capital gain

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

gain on money accumulated to purchase capital asset being the first step for acquisition of capital asset is capital in nature and cannot be taxed. The assessee made advance payments through Letter of Credit is the first step for acquisition of capital asset because there was a direct link of LOC towards purchase of the fixed assets, therefore it will

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 as per rule 8D in the absence of satisfaction of the Ld.AO on incorrectness of the claim made by the assessee. Page 30 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 8.5. Without prejudice, Special bench of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., reported in (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415, among other cases has held

M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act, if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied by the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, cannot embark upon the determination of the amount of expenditure in accordance with Rule 8D. While rejecting the claim of the assessee

DCIT vs. M/S CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act, if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied by the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, cannot embark upon the determination of the amount of expenditure in accordance with Rule 8D. While rejecting the claim of the assessee

M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), BANGLAOORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

2(46) of the Companies' Act, 1956 to mean share in the share capital of a company. On the other hand, a debenture is an instrument of debt executed by the Company acknowledging its liability to repay the amount represented therein at a specified rate of interest. In other words, a debenture is a certificate of a loan

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

2(46) of the Companies' Act, 1956 to mean share in the share capital of a company. On the other hand, a debenture is an instrument of debt executed by the Company acknowledging its liability to repay the amount represented therein at a specified rate of interest. In other words, a debenture is a certificate of a loan