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

Section 14A of the Act.” 11.8. In the case of Holcin India (P) Ltd. (supra) the facts were that the respondent- assessee was a subsidiary of Holder ind Investments Ltd., Mauritius, which was formed as a holding company for making downstream investments in cement manufacturing ventures in India. In the return of income filed for the Assessment Year

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 5 Addition under section 14A of the Act 5.1 The Learned

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

Section 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

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

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

depreciation as per section 32 of the IT Act in the current year as well as in following years if there is effect on the following years. This issue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Disallowance u/s. 14A

M/S. PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on the same should be granted. 11. Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act• by applying the provisions

M/S PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation on the same should be granted. 11. Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act• by applying the provisions

DCIT vs. M/S JUPITER CAPIAL PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

section 14A can be made. Following this judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we decline to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 5. As per ground No.3, this is a grievance of the Revenue that learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

14A. 16. The learned assessing officer has failed to substantiate why he is of the opinion that consulting services has no nexus with earning of interest and dividend income, even though based on this assumption he has disallowed the appellants claim of Rs 28,03,850. 17. The learned assessing officer erred in disallowing the amount

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

14A. 16. The learned assessing officer has failed to substantiate why he is of the opinion that consulting services has no nexus with earning of interest and dividend income, even though based on this assumption he has disallowed the appellants claim of Rs 28,03,850. 17. The learned assessing officer erred in disallowing the amount

JUPITER CAPIAL P. LTD. vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

14A. 16. The learned assessing officer has failed to substantiate why he is of the opinion that consulting services has no nexus with earning of interest and dividend income, even though based on this assumption he has disallowed the appellants claim of Rs 28,03,850. 17. The learned assessing officer erred in disallowing the amount

JCIT vs. STATE BANK OF MYSORE,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boaz

depreciation on transfer of securities from AFS category to HTM category. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s.14A to 2% of the exempt income which is against the scope of provisions of the Act. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. As regard ground

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

14A for computing book profit under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. Exchange gain on forward foreign exchange contracts: 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP has erred in adding unrealized Mark to Market (“MTM”) gains amounting to INR 17,388,000,on forward foreign exchange contracts

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page 8 of 34 to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section

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 read 10 to 13 satisfaction by the AO with rule 8D(2)(iii) Without prejudice, ACIT v Vireet Investment (P) Ltd [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 – only actual dividend yielded investments should be considered under rule 8D(2)(iii) Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case Protective disallowance under section vide order dated

M/S. ATRIA CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

Section 14A of the Act. " 11.8 In the case of Holcin India (P) Ltd. (supra) the facts were that the respondent- assessee was a subsidiary of Holderind Investments Ltd., Mauritius, which was formed as a holding company for 'making downstream investments in cement manufacturing ventures in India. In the return of income filed for the Assessment Year

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(3) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

depreciation allowance u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for interest capitalization u/s 36(1)(iii). 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,15,06,556 under section 14A