M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

8D(2)(iii). Hence, the issue of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii) is restored to the files of the A.O. The A.O. is directed to follow the dictum laid down by the Special Bench order of the Tribunal in the case of Veerat Investments (supra) and compute the disallowance accordingly. ADDITION / DEDUCTION BY TREATING DUTY CREDIT ENTITLEMENT UNDER SFIS

M/S.GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

8D(2)(iii). Hence, the issue of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii) is restored to the files of the A.O. The A.O. is directed to follow the dictum laid down by the Special Bench order of the Tribunal in the case of Veerat Investments (supra) and compute the disallowance accordingly. ADDITION / DEDUCTION BY TREATING DUTY CREDIT ENTITLEMENT UNDER SFIS

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

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

8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” (underlining supplied) IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 34 of 50 3.7 In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Marg Limited v. CIT (supra), it is clear that the disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act cannot exceed the exempt

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

8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” (underlining supplied) IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 & M/s. United Breweries Ltd., Bangalore Page 34 of 50 3.7 In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Marg Limited v. CIT (supra), it is clear that the disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act cannot exceed the exempt

K R PRADEEP,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

ii) works out to Rs.73,797/- only. 19. We heard Ld. D.R. on this issue and perused the record. A perusal of the amended provisions of Rule 8D, which is extracted above, would show that the annual average of the monthly average of the opening and closing balances of investments shall be worked out on the basis of investments, income

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

8D(2)(ii), this contention of the assessee would loose its significance. (c) The Ld A.R submitted that, for the purpose of computing average value of investments, the AO should consider only those investments which have actually yielded exempt dividend income. We notice that this argument of the assessee finds support from the decision rendered by the Special bench

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

8D(2)(ii), this contention of the assessee would loose its significance. (c) The Ld A.R submitted that, for the purpose of computing average value of investments, the AO should consider only 34 IT(TP)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/s.United Spirits Limited. those investments which have actually yielded exempt dividend income. We notice that this argument of the assessee finds support from

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-7 , BANGALORE

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

8D(2)(ii), this contention of the assessee would loose its significance. (c) The Ld A.R submitted that, for the purpose of computing average value of investments, the AO should consider only those investments which have actually yielded exempt dividend income. We notice that this argument of the assessee finds support from the decision rendered by the Special bench

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

Trust had filed its return of income showing the capital gain from the sale of shares and further erred in not adjudicating on this crucial issue by holding that this is academic in nature 7.5 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making the addition, by making a frivolous observation that there

M/S KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORT PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BELLARY RANGE , BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd., [For & On Behalf Of The Joint Erstwhile Partnership Commissioner Of Firm M/S. Kumaraswamy Income Tax, Mineral Exports], Bellary Range, No. 58, Cunningham Vs. Bellary. Road Cross, Bangalore – 560 052. Pan: Aabfk8539K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr(Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22/03/2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Gulbarga For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals]-4, Bengaluru Dated 22/03/2018 & The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143 [3] Of The Act Dated 28/03/2014, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case.

ii) Eco. Socio & Eco Deve. Expenses; 11,24,000/- (iii) Amt. disallowed u/s. 14A rwr 8D 1,27,500/- Total Taxable Income [Rounded Off] 81,69,16,200/- Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.4 The assessee made representation and filed detailed written submission along with supporting documents. The Ld.CIT