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 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

8D(2)(iii), included the investments made in Infosys BPO Ltd., that did not yield any exempt income for year under consideration. Going by the submissions of the Ld.AR, ratio laid down in Vireet Investment(supra), the disallowance then computed would be less that the disallowance voluntarily offered to tax by the assessee which is not the right course

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

8D(2)(iii), included the investments made in Infosys BPO Ltd., that did not yield any exempt income for year under consideration. Going by the submissions of the Ld.AR, ratio laid down in Vireet Investment(supra), the disallowance then computed would be less that the disallowance voluntarily offered to tax by the assessee which is not the right course

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

8D of the Rules read with section 14A of the Act\nprovides for disallowance of expenditure even where taxpayer has not earned\nany exempt income in a particular year\"\n\n3.\nThe CIT(A) erred in allowing the brand building expenditure incurred\nby the assessee the expenditure cannot be considered as a revenue\nexpenditure since it indirectly gives the assessee

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

capital expenditure and it is only a revenue expenditure. Further, in the following decision it was held that study undertaken in IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 Page 26 of 110 relation to an existing business is revenue in nature. [CIT v. Manganese Ore India Ltd [2016] 67 Taxmann.com 268 (Bombay), ITO v. Dodsal Mfg P Ltd [1984] 19 Taxman 27 (Ahmedabad

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

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

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

capital gain. We have also relied upon the Apex Court decision\nin the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Ramnivas Ramnivas Kasal reported in (2017) 82\nTaxmann.com 101 (SC) vide Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules are prospective\nSection 115JB of the Act, 1961\n3. Disputes, however, continue to exist on the application of these principles to\nthe assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

8D(2)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the IT Rules and there should be\ndisallowance under these 3 limbs and to be computed accordingly.\n5. The ld. A.R. submitted that assessee voluntarily made\ndisallowance u/s 14A of the Act corresponding to the exempted\nincome. Thus, there cannot be any further disallowance under the\nprovisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO\nNos

8D(2)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the IT Rules and there should be\ndisallowance under these 3 limbs and to be computed accordingly.\n5. The ld. A.R. submitted that assessee voluntarily made\ndisallowance u/s 14A of the Act corresponding to the exempted\nincome. Thus, there cannot be any further disallowance under the\nprovisions of 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

Section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules are prospective in nature and cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee." 5. In this regard, a memo is also filed by the learned counsel

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

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

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

Capital Gain on Sale of Shares of CanFin\nHome Ltd\n703,92,01,889\n9.\nDisallowance of Provision for Bad & Doubtful Debt U/s\n36(1)(viia)\n1569,59,38,804\n10.\nShort Allowance of Tax Deducted at Source.\n15,10,41,394\n11.\nShort Allowance of Tax Paid by Overseas Branch u/s\n90/91\n7,17,62,335\n12.\nApplicability

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

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

gains derived y the undertaking engaged in the export of articles as envisaged under section 10-B and could not be taxed separately under section 56. [Para 37].” ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 33 of 38 35.1 In view of the above judgement of jurisdictional High Court, we allow the ground

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

gains derived y the undertaking engaged in the export of articles as envisaged under section 10-B and could not be taxed separately under section 56. [Para 37].” ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 33 of 38 35.1 In view of the above judgement of jurisdictional High Court, we allow the ground