M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage

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

depreciation @ 12.5 %, without any reason. 14.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 cited (supra), wherein the Tribunal has held as under: “36. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Similar issue

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

depreciation @ 12.5 %, without any reason. 14.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 cited (supra), wherein the Tribunal has held as under: “36. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Similar issue

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 and there is no transfer of assets in EOU Unit 1. 3.13 Employee benefit cost: The following table demonstrates that the employee benefit cost of EOU-I was not affected by the formation of new units AY of Unit commencement of A Y 2008-09 A Y 2009-10 A Y 2010-11 Operations SEZ - S2 (Unit

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. 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. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

249 4. CIT v. Amman Steel & Allied Industries [2015] 377 ITR 568 (Mad.) @ 580 Page 11 of 34 15. The principle that if a finding offact is not challenged as being perverse, the High Court is bound to accept such finding. Therefore, as no such substantial question of law has been framed and the questions pertain to findings offact, which

M/S WYZMINDZ SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

249 (SC)] 5.2 The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has collected the service taxes and not paid to the Government exchequer till the due date of filing of return of income. Hence, it is to be treated as income of the assessee to be assessed for the assessment year 5 M/s.Wyzmindz Solutions Pvt.Ltd. under

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

depreciable assets sold; and (iii) value assigned to the other assets sold. The Tribunal dealt with the mode of computation of profits/gains arising on transfer of other assets. In para-100 of its order the Tribunal clearly expressed its opinion that the profits or gains arising on transfer of other assets (which comprises only of the asset “Technical Know

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

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

THE ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. The Archdiocesan The Deputy Board Of Education, Commissioner Of Archbishop’S House, No. 75 Income Tax Vs. Millers Road, Benson Town, (Exemptions), Bangalore – 560 046. Circle – 1, Pan: Aabat5296P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

249 (Karnataka), copy available on pages 11 to 24 of the case law compilation filed by ld. DR of revenue. He submitted that when the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is available, the same should be followed in preference to the judgment of any other High Court. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex

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

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation that means it has been put to use and capital expenses should be treated as operating in nature. In this regard, the assessee could not give any satisfactory answer. In the opinion of the AO, he also noted from the computation of income that no such adjustment was made by the assessee. Accordingly, he noted that two different opinions

VENA ENERGY PATAN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

3 of 26 proceedings, the TPO made an adjustment of Rs.6,46,60,083 towards interest on Non-Convertible Debentures (NCD) issued to the AE. The AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and also made the following other additions:- a. Disallowance of salary expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Rs.14,13,595. b. Disallowance

VENA ENERGY MH WIND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

3 of 26 proceedings, the TPO made an adjustment of Rs.6,46,60,083 towards interest on Non-Convertible Debentures (NCD) issued to the AE. The AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and also made the following other additions:- a. Disallowance of salary expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Rs.14,13,595. b. Disallowance

VENA ENERGY FATANPUR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

3 of 26 proceedings, the TPO made an adjustment of Rs.6,46,60,083 towards interest on Non-Convertible Debentures (NCD) issued to the AE. The AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and also made the following other additions:- a. Disallowance of salary expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Rs.14,13,595. b. Disallowance

VENA ENERGY KN WIND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

3 of 26 proceedings, the TPO made an adjustment of Rs.6,46,60,083 towards interest on Non-Convertible Debentures (NCD) issued to the AE. The AO passed the draft assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and also made the following other additions:- a. Disallowance of salary expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Rs.14,13,595. b. Disallowance

CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 Ms. Cisco System Capital (India) Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Bengaluru-2, Divyashree Chamber ‘B’ Wing, Vs. Bengaluru. No.11, O’Shougnessey Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aaccc 4552 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Pcit(A), Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru, Dated 10.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

249 and 250 of the Paper Book wherein it is noted by the Tribunal that in that year also, show cause notice under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 was issued by PCIT for that year calling upon the assessee to explain as to why the Assessment Order passed by the AO under section 143(3

M/S LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. TP adjustment relating to manufacturing segment : 4. In the manufacturing segment, the tax payer applied internal CUP method as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for import of parts for manufacture of personal computers. The relevant portion of the TP document is reproduced below:- "During the financial year 2013-14, Lenovo India has imported